Re: [patch] s390 tpf adjustment

[Ulrich Weigand <Ulrich dot Weigand at de dot ibm dot com>]

PJ Darcy wrote:

>If I recall correctly, we actually discussed separating some behaviors
>into an -mtpf and an -mprofiling-tpf, is that correct?  It kind of seems
>now that just about all of the current behavior _is_ based on the
profiling,
>and the rest of the behavior we wanted was put into the target build.
>
>If this is the case, and we do not plan on separating behaviors into more
>than one option, I would request that we just leave the option name as it
is.

Actually, my understanding has been that all behaviour required simply
because we run on TPF should be triggered solely from the s390x-ibm-tpf
target name, and not require any option.

The only behaviour triggered via an option should be the profiling
support (which actually *is* optional).  In that case, the option name
should reflect this (-mtpf is misleading IMO as at appears to imply
you should/must always specify that option when building for TPF).

>We have not tested the guard macro change - but if it's a global
>substitution, then it looks fine to me.  It's up to the two of you
>to apply it now or wait for us to give it a go with some testing.

Note that this patch does not *solely* change the macro name, there
is also a functional change involved: we now set up a stack frame
in *all* functions, even those that wouldn't really need it (i.e.
leaf functions), so that profiling works also in leaf functions.
(Eric tells me this is required by the TPF profiling code ...)

I'd appreciate it if this change were tested before it's applied,
for that reason.


Mit freundlichen Gruessen / Best Regards

Ulrich Weigand

--
  Dr. Ulrich Weigand
  Linux for S/390 Design & Development
  IBM Deutschland Entwicklung GmbH, Schoenaicher Str. 220, 71032 Boeblingen
  Phone: +49-7031/16-3727   ---   Email: Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com