On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 8:36 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 7:53 AM, Sriraman Tallam <tmsri...@google.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 7:38 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Sriraman Tallam <tmsri...@google.com> >>> wrote: >>>> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 6:38 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Sriraman Tallam <tmsri...@google.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I have made the following changes in this new patch which is attached: >>>>>> >>>>>> * Use target attribute itself to create function versions. >>>>>> * Handle any number of ISA names and arch= args to target attribute, >>>>>> generating the right dispatchers. >>>>>> * Integrate with the CPU runtime detection checked in this week. >>>>>> * Overload resolution: If the caller's target matches any of the >>>>>> version function's target, then a direct call to the version is >>>>>> generated, no need to go through the dispatching. >>>>>> >>>>>> Patch also available for review here: >>>>>> http://codereview.appspot.com/5752064 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Does it work with >>>>> >>>>> int foo (); >>>>> int foo () __attribute__ ((targetv("arch=corei7"))); >>>>> >>>>> int (*foo_p) () = foo? >>>> >>>> Yes, this will work. foo_p will be the address of the dispatcher >>>> function and hence doing (*foo_p)() will call the right version. >>> >>> Even when foo_p is a global variable and compiled with -fPIC? >> >> I am not sure I understand what the complication is here, but FWIW, I >> tried this example and it works >> >> int foo () >> { >> return 0; >> } >> >> int __attribute__ ((target ("arch=corei7))) >> foo () >> { >> return 1; >> } >> >> int (*foo_p)() = foo; >> int main () >> { >> return (*foo_p)(); >> } >> >> g++ -fPIC -O2 example.cc >> >> >> Did you have something else in mind? Could you please elaborate if you >> a have a particular case in mind. >> > > That is what I meant. But I didn't see it in your testcase. > Can you add it to your testcase? > > Also you should verify the correct function is called in > your testcase at run-time.
Ok, i will update the patch. Thanks, -Sri. > > > Thanks. > > > -- > H.J.
