This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Dynamic dispatch of multiversioned functions and CPU mocks for code coverage.
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Sriraman Tallam <tmsriram at google dot com>
- Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, David Li <davidxl at google dot com>, Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>, "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 21:09:23 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Dynamic dispatch of multiversioned functions and CPU mocks for code coverage.
- References: <CAAs8HmwJSCONWpMfVNFxo=Qz3B=kK9T+suLZ7JH-JRkr07G=wA at mail dot gmail dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1305101333040 dot 5496 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <CAAs8HmwwcVKU16CGf4G6GKx8FKVOgE9bN4LTqd5YjzY3sgJefg at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Fri, 10 May 2013, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Joseph S. Myers
> <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 9 May 2013, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
> >
> >> Then, I plan to add the following hooks to libgcc (in a different patch) :
> >>
> >> int set_mock_cpu_is (const char *cpu);
> >> int set_mock_cpu_supports (const char *isa);
> >> int init_mock_cpu (); // Clear the values of the mock cpu.
> >
> > Those names are in the user's namespace; I think libgcc should only
> > provide or use symbols in the implementation namespace.
>
> Shall I just use __builtin prefixes for these too?, would that work?
I'm not sure if that's a good idea for something that's actually a library
function (we've previously discussed rejecting explicit declarations of
__builtin_* identifiers to some extent - see bug 32455 - which would be an
issue for defining library functions with such a name if we do decide in
future to reject such declarations), but use __ prefixes in some form,
certainly.
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com