On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 02:24:21PM -0700, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
> Does this also mean that Paul's idea of doing:
>
> LD_CPU_FEATURES=sse,sse2 ./a.out # run as if only sse and sse2 are available
>
> is fraught with risk when used with IFUNC, particularly on x86_64?
>
> Shouldn't the IFUNC resol
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:44 PM, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 06:18:58PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> I was asking for the ifunc selector to be
>> Overridable by ld_preload or a similar mechanism at dynamic load time.
>
> Please don't. Calling an ifunc resolver function in
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 06:18:58PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> I was asking for the ifunc selector to be
> Overridable by ld_preload or a similar mechanism at dynamic load time.
Please don't. Calling an ifunc resolver function in another library
is just asking for trouble with current glibc.
Interesting idea about lazy IFUNC relocation.
David
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 2:02 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>This patch is meant for google/gcc-4_7 but I want this to be
>> considered for trunk when it opens again. This pa
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> "H.J. Lu" wrote:
>>We can pass environment variables to IFUNC selector. Maybe we can
>>enable it for debug build.
Enabling this for just debug builds would not cover my use case.
If the environment variable is used at loader initializ
+cc libc-alpha
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 9:05 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> Interesting idea about lazy IFUNC relocation.
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 2:02 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Sriraman Tallam
>> wrote:
>>>This patch is meant for google/gcc-4_7 bu
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Paul Pluzhnikov
wrote:
> +cc libc-alpha
>
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 9:05 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> Interesting idea about lazy IFUNC relocation.
>
>> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 2:02 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>
>>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Sriraman
"H.J. Lu" wrote:
>On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Paul Pluzhnikov
> wrote:
>> +cc libc-alpha
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 9:05 AM, Xinliang David Li
> wrote:
>>> Interesting idea about lazy IFUNC relocation.
>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 2:02 AM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
>>
On Fri, Mar
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
> Hi,
>
>This patch is meant for google/gcc-4_7 but I want this to be
> considered for trunk when it opens again. This patch makes it easy to
> test for code coverage of multiversioned functions. Here is a
> motivating example:
>
> __att
Ok. If the use case is to enable the test of the same application
binary (not the per function unit test) with CPU mocking at runtime
(via environment variable or application specific flags), the proposed
changes make sense.
David
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
> On Fri
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>This patch is meant for google/gcc-4_7 but I want this to be
>> considered for trunk when it opens again. This patch makes it easy to
>> test for code coverage of mu
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
> Hi,
>
>This patch is meant for google/gcc-4_7 but I want this to be
> considered for trunk when it opens again. This patch makes it easy to
> test for code coverage of multiversioned functions. Here is a
> motivating example:
>
> __attr
12 matches
Mail list logo
