On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 10:13 PM, Sriraman Tallam <tmsri...@google.com> wrote:
> +cc c++ front-end maintainers
>
> Hi,
>
> C++ Frontend maintainers, Could you please take a look at the
> front-end part when you find the time?
So you have (for now?) omitted the C frontend change(s)?
> Honza, your thoughts on the callgraph part?
>
> Richard, any further comments/feedback?
Overall I like it - the cgraph portions need comments from Honza and the
C++ portions from a C++ maintainer though.
I would appreciate a C version, too.
As you are tackling the C++ frontend first you should add some C++
specific testcases - if only to verify you properly reject cases you do not
or can not implement. Like eventually
class Foo {
virtual void bar() __attribute__((target("sse")));
virtual void bar() __attribute__((target("sse2")));
};
or
template <class T>
void bar (T t) __attribute__((target("sse")));
template <class T>
void bar (T t) __attribute__((target("sse2")));
template <>
void bar (int t);
(how does regular C++ overload resolution / template specialization
interfere with the target overloads?)
Thanks,
Richard.
> Additionally, I am working on generating better mangled names for
> function versions, along the lines of C++ thunks.
>
> Thanks,
> -Sri.
>
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Sriraman Tallam <tmsri...@google.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Attaching updated patch for function multiversioning which brings
>> in plenty of changes.
>>
>> * As suggested by Richard earlier, I have made cgraph aware of
>> function versions. All nodes of function versions are chained and the
>> dispatcher bodies are created on demand while building cgraph edges.
>> The dispatcher body will be created if and only if there is a call or
>> reference to a versioned function. Previously, I was maintaining the
>> list of versions separately in a hash map, all that is gone now.
>> * Now, the file multiverison.c has some helper routines that are used
>> in the context of function versioning. There are no new passes and no
>> new globals.
>> * More tests, updated existing tests.
>> * Fixed lots of bugs.
>> * Updated patch description.
>>
>> Patch attached. Patch also available for review at
>> http://codereview.appspot.com/5752064
>>
>> Please let me know what you think,
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Sri.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Sriraman Tallam <tmsri...@google.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Hi H.J,
>>>
>>> Attaching new patch with 2 test cases, mv2.C checks ISAs only and
>>> mv1.C checks ISAs and arches mixed. Right now, checking only arches is
>>> not needed as they are mutually exclusive, any order should be fine.
>>>
>>> Patch also available for review here: http://codereview.appspot.com/5752064
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -Sri.
>>>
>>> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 6:37 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Sriraman Tallam <tmsri...@google.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Hi H.J.,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have updated the patch to improve the dispatching method like we
>>>>> discussed. Each feature gets a priority now, and the dispatching is
>>>>> done in priority order. Please see i386.c for the changes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Patch also available for review here:
>>>>> http://codereview.appspot.com/5752064
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think you need 3 tests:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Only with ISA.
>>>> 2. Only with arch
>>>> 3. Mixed with ISA and arch
>>>>
>>>> since test mixed ISA and arch may hide issues with ISA only or arch only.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> H.J.
