On Thu, 2017-09-21 at 12:37 +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Sep 2017, Steve Ellcey wrote:
>
> >
> > 2017-09-05 Steve Ellcey
> >
> > * config.gcc: Add new case statement to set
> > default_gnu_indirect_function. Remove it from x86_64-*-linux*,
> > i[34567]86-*,
On Tue, 5 Sep 2017, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> 2017-09-05 Steve Ellcey
>
> * config.gcc: Add new case statement to set
> default_gnu_indirect_function. Remove it from x86_64-*-linux*,
> i[34567]86-*, powerpc*-*-linux*spe*, powerpc*-*-linux*, s390-*-linux*,
> s390x-*
On 05/09/17 18:09, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-09-04 at 15:40 +0100, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
>
>> this is not the right default for bionic, uclibc and musl
>>
>> (gcc does not distinguish between supporting ifunc in the
>> compiler vs runtime, so when ifunc is enabled it is assumed
>> the c ru
On Mon, 2017-09-04 at 15:40 +0100, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> this is not the right default for bionic, uclibc and musl
>
> (gcc does not distinguish between supporting ifunc in the
> compiler vs runtime, so when ifunc is enabled it is assumed
> the c runtime will have support too, hence libatomic an
On 12/06/17 16:02, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> I recently noticed that the GCC 'resolver' attribute used for ifunc's is not
> on by default for aarch64 even though all the infrastructure to support it is
> in place. I made memcpy an ifunc on aarch64 in glibc and am looking at
> possibly using it for lib
This is a ping for my patch to enable the ifunc resolver by default for
aarch64.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-06/msg00806.html
Steve Ellcey
sell...@cavium.com
I recently noticed that the GCC 'resolver' attribute used for ifunc's is not
on by default for aarch64 even though all the infrastructure to support it is
in place. I made memcpy an ifunc on aarch64 in glibc and am looking at
possibly using it for libatomic too. For this reason I would like to en
