This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Copy over section name during cloning (PR ipa/64963)
- From: Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>
- To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 19:33:32 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Copy over section name during cloning (PR ipa/64963)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20150216170330 dot GI1746 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <20150216182333 dot GA15194 at kam dot mff dot cuni dot cz> <20150216182840 dot GL1746 at tucnak dot redhat dot com>
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 07:23:33PM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > > --- gcc/cgraphclones.c.jj 2015-01-09 21:59:44.000000000 +0100
> > > +++ gcc/cgraphclones.c 2015-02-16 14:02:16.564725881 +0100
> > > @@ -577,7 +577,7 @@ cgraph_node::create_virtual_clone (vec<c
> > > char *name;
> > >
> > > if (!in_lto_p)
> > > - gcc_checking_assert (tree_versionable_function_p (old_decl));
> > > + gcc_checking_assert (tree_versionable_function_p (old_decl));
> > >
> > > gcc_assert (local.can_change_signature || !args_to_skip);
> > >
> > > @@ -617,6 +617,8 @@ cgraph_node::create_virtual_clone (vec<c
> > > ABI support for this. */
> > > set_new_clone_decl_and_node_flags (new_node);
> > > new_node->clone.tree_map = tree_map;
> > > + if (!DECL_ONE_ONLY (old_decl))
> > Instead of DECL_ONE_ONLY you want to test implicit_section flag. I think
> > resolving unique section with -ffunction-section is also needed.
> DECL_ONE_ONLY was the test that 4.9 has been using here:
> /* Update the properties.
> Make clone visible only within this translation unit. Make sure
> that is not weak also.
> ??? We cannot use COMDAT linkage because there is no
> ABI support for this. */
> if (DECL_ONE_ONLY (old_decl))
> DECL_SECTION_NAME (new_node->decl) = NULL;
> therefore I wanted to match the 4.9 behavior, before we try something
> different incrementally.
OK. implicit_section is trye only for DECL_ONE_ONLY declarations and those
that was named by resolve_unique_section via -ffunction-sections, so the
change should be safe, but lets first go with immitating 4.9 behaviour.
Incremetnally I think we should fix this and also teach inliner to not
make code travel in between user named sections. This may become more
issue with an LTO kernel builds.
> > > + new_node->set_section (this->get_section ());
> > No need for this->...
> Sure, can change that.