This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Add new hooks ASM_OUTPUT_START_FUNCTION_HEADER ...
- From: Dominik Vogt <vogt at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- To: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Cc: Andreas Krebbel <krebbel at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, Ulrich Weigand <Ulrich dot Weigand at de dot ibm dot com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 10:44:47 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add new hooks ASM_OUTPUT_START_FUNCTION_HEADER ...
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20150921113158 dot GA30365 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <5601B25F dot 7020501 at redhat dot com> <20150923144851 dot GA22727 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <5603D354 dot 5030404 at redhat dot com> <20150924134823 dot GA5142 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <56054D44 dot 9000709 at redhat dot com>
- Reply-to: vogt at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 03:33:56PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 09/24/2015 03:48 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >Hm, I wonder whether wrapping all these section switches in
> >assemble_start/end_function in ".machine" pseudoops (that's what
> >we need the hooks for; similar to .arch for ix86) has any real
> >effect.
>
> I don't think I follow what you're trying to say here?
I mean, it's more or less random whether switching to and from the
function's section ends up inside the new .machine and
.machinemode directives (if the section needs to be switched for
this function) or outside (if the assembler code had already
switched to the correct section earlier). I assume that .machine
and .machinemode have no effect on the section switching, but I'm
not completely sure (alignment?).
(@Andreas + Uli: Do you know of any effect this would have on
s390?)
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany