This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PING^3: [PATCH] i386: Don't generate alias for function return thunk
- From: Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>
- To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 17:03:53 +0100
- Subject: Re: PING^3: [PATCH] i386: Don't generate alias for function return thunk
- References: <CAMe9rOoRdnaCVabzcN9kF=SJego_thMB3TF3Kt=fAzPR1RXkVw@mail.gmail.com> <20180315155108.GA43264@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <CAMe9rOqawknskmUSbYbnmL=Nx=_ZdAWnUKrksG2jr+UESqMAPw@mail.gmail.com>
> > What is the reason for using different names for return and indirect thunks at first place?
> >
>
> These 2 thunks are identical. But one may want to provide an
> alternate thunk only for
> indirect branch and leaves return thunk alone. You can't do that if
> both have the same
> name.
Hmm, OK, what is the benefit to have two different thunks? It is just
safety precaution so we could adjust one without adjusting the other in
future?
Honza