This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH][OBVIOUS] Fix ifunc detection.


On 03/08/2018 10:15 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 03/02/2018 05:38 PM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 16:24:48 +0100, Martin Liška <mliska@suse.cz> wrote:
>>> This fixes detection of ifunc target capability.
>>> I'm going to install the patch.
>>
>> You could also just have approved the patch I had sent two months before:
>> <http://mid.mail-archive.com/87fu9aiemr.fsf@euler.schwinge.homeip.net>.
>> ;-)
> 
> Hello.
> 
> Sorry for overlooking your patch. It's better to not return 0. Thomas
> please install the patch, it's obvious fix.

Looks Thomas is out of office, thus I installed his patch as r258362.

Martin

> 
> Thanks,
> Martin
> 
>>
>> One remark:
>>
>>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
>>> @@ -449,7 +449,7 @@ proc check_ifunc_available { } {
>>>  	extern "C" {
>>>  	#endif
>>>  	typedef void F (void);
>>> -	F* g (void) {}
>>> +	F* g (void) { return 0; }
>>>  	void f () __attribute__ ((ifunc ("g")));
>>>  	#ifdef __cplusplus
>>>  	}
>>
>> Is it OK to "return 0" from this ifunc handler, or might some analysis in
>> GCC trip over that (at some later point)?  In my patch, I returned the
>> address of an "extern" function.
>>
>>
>> Grüße
>>  Thomas
>>
> 


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]