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] Selftest framework (v7)


On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 11:57:49PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 05:53:50PM -0400, Trevor Saunders wrote:
> > > > As far as I can 
> > > > tell this just involves moving the start of namespace selftest
> > > > upwards a 
> > > > bit in the files where we have tests.
> > > 
> > > Yes, and it does seem cleaner to have all of the selftest code start
> > > like this:
> > > 
> > >   #if CHECKING_P
> > 
> > What are we gaining by ifdefing this? I would think on reasonable
> > systems the compiler would optimize out the call to the selftests in
> > release builds and then the linker would gc all the unused functions.
> > Do we really care about code size in places that doesn't happen enough
> > to go through this?
> 
> Not everyone is building the compiler with LTO, and if you don't, then
> how would you optimize that away?

-ffunction-sections -Wl,--gc-sections should be enough I think.  I guess
we don't use those at the moment though.

> And yes, not having the self-tests, especially if they are going to grow
> further, in release compilers is desirable, especially if it would be
> intermixed with hot code.

That's fair, though turning on --gc-sections where we can should further
help with that, and that should be more effective with
-ffunction-sections -fdata-sections, so its seems to me like the right
thing to do is add configure tests to enable those?  And then its more
of a non issue?

Trev

> 
> 	Jakub


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