Re: [google] Patch to enable efficient function level instrumentation (issue 5416043)

[davidxl at google dot com]

Have you uploaded the revised patch?

David


http://codereview.appspot.com/5416043/diff/1/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
File gcc/config/i386/i386.c (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/5416043/diff/1/gcc/config/i386/i386.c#newcode10927
gcc/config/i386/i386.c:10927: +     is later renamed to '<section_name>'
by ix86_elf_asm_named_section().  */
On 2011/12/02 01:57:17, harshit wrote:
> On 2011/11/28 22:16:27, davidxl wrote:
> > Explain more on the comdat handling.

> I have limited knowledge about comdat sections, so can't give a
detailed
> explanation on why the assembler emits an error.

What does the assembler error look like? An example file would be
helpful.

http://codereview.appspot.com/5416043/diff/1/gcc/config/i386/i386.c#newcode10970
gcc/config/i386/i386.c:10970: +
sizeof("_function_patch_prologue") - 1;
Define a macro for the prologue and epilogue name.

http://codereview.appspot.com/5416043/diff/1/gcc/config/i386/i386.c#newcode10974
gcc/config/i386/i386.c:10974: +
section_name_length) == 0)
The two section name length happen to be the same, but it is not good to
share the same value here. sizeof (..) will be evaluated at compile
time.

http://codereview.appspot.com/5416043/diff/1/gcc/config/i386/i386.opt
File gcc/config/i386/i386.opt (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/5416043/diff/1/gcc/config/i386/i386.opt#newcode570
gcc/config/i386/i386.opt:570: Minimum number of instructions in the
function without loop before the function is qualified for patching for
instrumentation (for use with -mpatch-functions-for-instrumentation)
in params.def

On 2011/12/02 01:57:17, harshit wrote:
> On 2011/11/28 22:16:27, davidxl wrote:
> > It may be better to define PARAM for it.

> Param for this option? How to do it in options file? I looked at the
docs, but
> didn't find anything on it.

http://codereview.appspot.com/5416043/