Segher Boessenkool <seg...@kernel.crashing.org> writes: > On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote: >> > Am 02.07.2019 um 15:39 schrieb Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>: >> > On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 03:33:28PM +0200, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote: >> >>> Am 02.07.2019 um 15:19 schrieb Segher Boessenkool >> >>> <seg...@kernel.crashing.org>: >> >>> >> >>> On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 08:02:16AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >> >>>> On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 10:51:54AM +0200, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote: >> >>>>> +#undef TARGET_INSN_ALIGNMENT >> >>>>> +#define TARGET_INSN_ALIGNMENT 16 >> >>>> >> >>>> There already is FUNCTION_BOUNDARY for something similar, which fits in >> >>>> well with STACK_BOUNDARY, PARM_BOUNDARY, many more *_BOUNDARY. I >> >>>> realise >> >>>> you may prefer a hook, but as long as we aren't getting rid of all the >> >>>> other macros, what's the point? >> >>> >> >>> And maybe LABEL_BOUNDARY is bettter for this than INSN_BOUNDARY as well? >> >> >> >> Can’t we just use FUNCTION_BOUNDARY then? >> >> I think .LASANPC is always emitted at the beginning of a function. >> > >> > Isn't e.g. the hotpatch sequence emitted before it? >> >> You are right, with -fpatchable-function-entry it’s moved. >> >> So, I guess I should stick with the current approach. >> I could change TARGET_INSN_ALIGNMENT hook to INSN_BOUNDARY macro if that >> would better match the current design. I would still call it INSN, and >> not LABEL, because LABEL can refer to data. > > On some archs LABEL_BOUNDARY can be bigger than INSN_BOUNDARY (just like > FUNCTION_BOUNDARY can be even bigger, like on 390 :-) ) > > Either will work for your purposes afaics. > > LABEL in RTL is always a CODE_LABEL I think? Maybe CODE_LABEL_BOUNDARY > would make it clearer, it's not like a short name for this is useful > anyway.
IIUC the new value is effectively a mandatory/guaranteed minimum value of align_labels/LABEL_ALIGN that applies even in blocks optimized for size. So IMO sticking with *_ALIGNMENT would be better. Thanks, Richard
