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] S/390: Improve storing asan frame_pc

From: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii at linux dot ibm dot com>
To: Segher Boessenkool <segher at kernel dot crashing dot org>
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, krebbel at linux dot ibm dot com, jakub at redhat dot com
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 15:33:28 +0200
Subject: Re: [PATCH] S/390: Improve storing asan frame_pc
References: <20190702085154.26981-1-iii@linux.ibm.com> <20190702130216.GI18316@gate.crashing.org> <20190702131957.GJ18316@gate.crashing.org>

> Am 02.07.2019 um 15:19 schrieb Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>:
> 
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 08:02:16AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 10:51:54AM +0200, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
>>> +#undef TARGET_INSN_ALIGNMENT
>>> +#define TARGET_INSN_ALIGNMENT 16
>> 
>> There already is FUNCTION_BOUNDARY for something similar, which fits in
>> well with STACK_BOUNDARY, PARM_BOUNDARY, many more *_BOUNDARY.  I realise
>> you may prefer a hook, but as long as we aren't getting rid of all the
>> other macros, what's the point?
> 
> And maybe LABEL_BOUNDARY is bettter for this than INSN_BOUNDARY as well?

Can’t we just use FUNCTION_BOUNDARY then?
I think .LASANPC is always emitted at the beginning of a function.

Best regards,
Ilya

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] S/390: Improve storing asan frame_pc
  - From: Jakub Jelinek

References:
- [PATCH] S/390: Improve storing asan frame_pc
  - From: Ilya Leoshkevich
- Re: [PATCH] S/390: Improve storing asan frame_pc
  - From: Segher Boessenkool
- Re: [PATCH] S/390: Improve storing asan frame_pc
  - From: Segher Boessenkool

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