This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: mudflap versus cgraph
- From: Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, fche at redhat dot com, jh at suse dot cz
- Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 10:54:23 -0700
- Subject: Re: mudflap versus cgraph
- Organization: CodeSourcery LLC
- References: <87hdt48c1f.fsf@taltos.codesourcery.com><20040622173131.GA5516@redhat.com>
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 10:31:31 -0700
Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 09:14:04PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
...
> > provided that we could figure out how to construct a function in a
> > completely language-independent manner (which we need anyway).
>
> We have gimple/generic. We *can* create completely languages
> independent functions now.
What should it look like? All existing examples of synthetic function
creation involve calling a few language-dependent hooks (if nothing
else, the start_function and finish_function equivalents).
> > .section .rodata.mf.statics, "a"
> > .long x
> > .long 4
>
> This is pic-safe if you put it in a writeable section.
Good to know, but this change is more invasive than I want to get into
right now.
zw