On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 12:54 PM, Jan Hubicka <hubi...@ucw.cz> wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 10:47 AM, Jan Hubicka <hubi...@ucw.cz> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 9:03 AM, Jan Hubicka <hubi...@ucw.cz> wrote: >> >> >> > 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? >> >> > >> >> >> >> That is correct. >> > >> > Hmm, I guess the patch is OK. Things are slightly more flexible this way >> > and >> > duplicating thunk is not terribly expensive. One can always link with >> > non-comdat+ alias. >> > >> >> That is true. OK to backport to GCC 7 after a few days? > OK. I suppose you are testing return thunks on some real environment, like > GCC bootstrap :)
Yes. -- H.J.
