On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 10:30:38AM +0100, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
> At a second glance it is not really clear to me why we disable hotpatching
> for nested functions at
> all. While it is probably a bit difficult to actually hotpatch them I don't
> see why we should
> prevent it. We probably just
On 03/26/2015 09:56 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 01:19:38PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
>> @@ -11368,6 +11349,7 @@ static void
>> s390_reorg (void)
>> {
>>bool pool_overflow = false;
>> + int hw_before, hw_after;
>>
>>/* Make sure all splits have been perf
Hi!
On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 01:19:38PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> @@ -11368,6 +11349,7 @@ static void
> s390_reorg (void)
> {
>bool pool_overflow = false;
> + int hw_before, hw_after;
>
>/* Make sure all splits have been performed; splits after
> machine_dependent_reorg might
New patch with review results:
* 6-byte-NOP only for ZARCH
* Formatting.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
>From 176268849643c46427ea873c35390700ea7a4489 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Dominik Vogt
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 13:48:26 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] S390: Hotpatching
On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 12:22:21PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> @@ -5308,34 +5309,14 @@ s390_asm_output_function_label (FILE *asm_out_file,
> const char *fname,
>stored directly before the label without crossing a cacheline
>boundary. All this is necessary to make sure the trampol
Updated patch after internal review:
* Moved the hotpatch specific NOP patterns to the normal NOP
patterns in the .md file.
* Make function_alignment unsigned and cast align_function
instead.
(ChangeLog is still the same.)
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
>From e0083
