Poll for option name (Was: [PATCH v6] add -fprolog-pad=N,M option)
Torsten Duwe
duwe@suse.de
Wed Mar 1 13:32:00 GMT 2017
On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 11:34:37AM +0000, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> On 01/03/17 11:26, Torsten Duwe wrote:
> >
> > However, writing some more documentation and being asked for clarity,
> > I found it more depicting to talk about the function entry point than
> > about the prologue. Also, this is about generic instrumentation, and it
> > surely involves NOPs.
> >
> > So, hereby I'd like to start a small poll for a good name for this feature.
> > Anyone with a better idea please speak up now. Otherwise I'll just
> > s/prolog/prologue/g.
>
> Hmm, I'd prefer the bike shed to be green :-)
>
> How about --fpatchable-function-entry=<size-spec>?
>
IMHO qualifies as "better". And green is best anyway :-]
> > I've made another improvement which makes the code even more robust now.
> > +DEF_TARGET_INSN (nop, (void))
> > In gcc/target-insns.def. This way I can easily check whether there is a
> > (define_insn "nop" ...) in the target md. Currently, all CPUs have it, but
> > who knows.
>
> The mid-end already has direct calls to gen_nop with no guards on the
> pattern existing, So the compiler won't build without a NOP pattern.
Richard told me "don't do that", and we found the DEF_TARGET_INSN. So far
I can see gen_nop only in target specifics and in cfgrtl.c -- admittedly
I don't know what that does.
So the v6 code is basically OK?
Names better than -fpatchable-function-entry anyone?
Torsten
More information about the Gcc-patches
mailing list