On 10/29/2015 12:13 PM, Evgeny Stupachenko wrote:
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:02 PM, Jan Hubicka<hubi...@ucw.cz> wrote:
>>Yes. This is not necessary. However that way we'll have the following
>>code in dispatcher:
>> cmpl $6, __cpu_model+4(%rip)
>> sete %al
>> movzbl %al, %eax
>> testl %eax, %eax
>> jle .L16
>> movl $foo.target_clone.1, %eax
>>I think it is very hard to read and debug such...
>>
>>While now we have:
>>
>> cmpl $6, __cpu_model+4(%rip)
>> sete %al
>> movzbl %al, %eax
>> testl %eax, %eax
>> jle .L16
>> movl $foo.arch_slm, %eax
>>
>>and it is clear that we are jumping to SLM code here.
>>I'd like to keep target in names.
>
>I am not against more informative names, but why you don't pass the info here:
>
>+create_target_clone (cgraph_node *node, bool definition)
>+{
>+ cgraph_node *new_node;
>+ if (definition)
>+ {
>+ new_node = node->create_version_clone_with_body (vNULL, NULL,
>+ NULL, false,
>+ NULL, NULL,
>+ "target_clone");
>+ new_node->force_output = true;
>+ }
>+ else
>+ {
>+ tree new_decl = copy_node (node->decl);
>+ new_node = cgraph_node::get_create (new_decl);
>+ }
>+ return new_node;
>+}
>
>passing "arch_slm" instead of target_clone will get you the name you want
>(plus the extra index that may be needed anyway to disambiguate).
>
>Note that in general those .suffixes should be machine parseable, so
cp-demangle.c
>can expand them correctly. We may want to have some consistent grammar for
them here
>and update cp-demangle.c to output nice info like "target clone for..."
Ok. I've modified the patch correspondingly.
You'll need updated ChangeLog entries. Don't forget to drop the omp-low
spurious whitespace change.
You should also fix the formatting nits Jan pointed out.
With those changes, this patch is OK for the trunk. I'll run the header
file reordering & cleanup tool after the patch is committed to the trunk.
jeff
