Re: Calls to built-in functions are not Binary Compatible

[Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>]

Andrew Haley writes:
 > Bryce McKinlay writes:
 >  > Doesn't this disable builtins mechanism entirely when 
 >  > -findirect-dispatch is used?
 > 
 > Yes.
 > 
 >  > These builtins improve GCJ's performance significantly on some numeric 
 >  > code (scimark, for example).
 > 
 > So you don't use indirect dispatch, surely.
 > 
 >  > Wouldn't it be better to fix whatever problem is causing direct
 >  > calls to be generated rather than disabling them completely?
 > 
 > I don't understand your point -- this is the code that is causing
 > direct calls to be made.  Built-in functions in gcc either generate
 > direct calls or they get replaced by inline code.

One other possibility is perhaps to give these builtins entry names
that don't change whenever we change gcj's mangling.  But we don't
intend to changes gcj's mangling ever again, anyway.  So is this worth
doing at all?

Andrew.