https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88345
--- Comment #14 from Mark Rutland <mark at kernel dot org> --- > Patch posted before, but seems like not everybody agree: > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-October/603049.html FWIW, from the arm64 kernel side all we need is a reliable mechanism to align functions, so the `-malign-all-function` or `-falign-all-functions` options Jan suggests there would be good enough going forwards. It's just unfortunate that we don't currently have a reliable mechanism (and have to workaround that by avoiding the use of `-Os` and the `__cold__` attribute), and I guess the new option would not be back-ported to stable GCC releases. I don't think we want this hidden behind a `-flive-patching` option, since may also want the alignment when not live-patching (e.g. for our DEBUG_FORCE_FUNCTION_ALIGN_64B option), and the arch-specific details vary quite drastically (e.g. arm64 uses `-fpatchable-function-entry=M,N`, x86 uses `-mfentry` for patching and `-fpatchable-function-entry` for some CFI-related logic), and those details are liable to change over time. Being able to set the alignment independent from those details is likely to be more future-proof. If it's intended that '-falign-functions=N' is overridden in some cases, it would be nice to have that more clearly documented.
