This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: User directed Function Multiversioning via Function Overloading (issue5752064)
- From: Sriraman Tallam <tmsriram at google dot com>
- To: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google dot com>, mark at codesourcery dot com, nathan at codesourcery dot com, "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>, Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com>, reply at codereview dot appspotmail dot com, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 16:45:40 -0700
- Subject: Re: User directed Function Multiversioning via Function Overloading (issue5752064)
- References: <20120307004630.A503DB21B6@azwildcat.mtv.corp.google.com> <CAMe9rOrdZaTDzakgpHxXWE3hhUvR7LNO1NkUrtAJJCjTjz_mjg@mail.gmail.com> <CAAs8Hmzw=tTGLypq1GQ7cA=DFupP8VpwB5QiE+jwLcYOovV=YQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAAs8HmzF0JJWPvFzoNGMSJ7ZS1h4KmROdx29-__8Oh9yUA1=JA@mail.gmail.com> <CAAs8HmxgMMVtCd9Xc4x_wJS80YCDrVFVRWsF3-G9uYjyE0OR6w@mail.gmail.com> <4FF7D1C6.90407@redhat.com> <CAAkRFZ+=y=nOAhAx9f5teUORsfAuVAYFuWCt4qf56DHZFo2uJw@mail.gmail.com> <4FF96D0C.5060406@redhat.com> <CAAkRFZKxLsJLr1Z23s8W=GTX+Or5=Cz2kTD9ySKJdjrRT8WGQQ@mail.gmail.com> <4FFBF9F5.6020306@redhat.com> <CAAkRFZKdC-zM-U3njRziRrP4O5Dc=-wt70Q2Kt-Y5ErrgL4GLg@mail.gmail.com> <CAAs8HmxHF38ktt6syjWp-MpjiX+6NcXh7_8Xn6iKnAiF2vRymQ@mail.gmail.com> <5008708E.1030109@redhat.com> <CAAs8Hmy7h5SGkJ+D5v_DnXs-h4B2d_YWEcstufb5=SowbVBp0Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAAs8HmyKPG_LxxxP2ngkGTFAKUPXQDJsbbsrOB_oAP0ViyER3g@mail.gmail.com> <506F1C5D.9060500@redhat.com> <CAAs8HmxSO4eP=g+dQRxXvcWijEUE0ZFAvmBYZ27UByd0HWtcQg@mail.gmail.com> <506F6418.2000701@redhat.com>
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 10/05/2012 05:57 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>>
>> In general, the dispatcher is always necessary since it is not known
>> what function version will be called at compile time. This is true
>> whether it is a direct or an indirect call.
>
>
> So you want to compile with lowest common denominator flags and then choose
> a faster version at runtime based on the running configuration? I see.
>
Yes.
Thanks,
-Sri.
> Jason
>