[google] Emit relative addresses to function patch sections instead of absolute addresses. (issue6572065)

commit fc3a55ccec9bc770c79f8a221f5abd397befc8f6 Author: Harshit Chopra Date: Thu Sep 20 17:49:59 2012 -0700 Instead of emitting absolute addresses to the function patch sections, emit relative addresses. Absolute addresses might require relocation, which is time consuming and fraught

[google] Add attributes: always_patch_for_instrumentation and never_patch_for_instrumentation (issue6821051)

_for_instrumentation disables inlining of that function. Tested: Tested by 'crosstool-validate.py --crosstool_ver=16 --testers=crosstool' ChangeLog: 2012-10-30 Harshit Chopra * gcc/c-family/c-common.c (handle_always_patch_for_instrumentation_attribute): Handle al

[google] Add attributes: always_patch_for_instrumentation and never_patch_for_instrumentation (issue6821051)

2012-11-05 Harshit Chopra * gcc/c-family/c-common.c (handle_always_patch_for_instrumentation_attribute): Handle always_patch_for_instrumentation attribute and turn inlining off for the function. (handle_never_patch_for_instrumentation_attribute): Handle

Re: [google] Add attributes: always_patch_for_instrumentation and never_patch_for_instrumentation (issue6821051)

trunk review now. I am a bit too late now, I guess. If I target for the next release, will it create any issues for the gcc48 release? > > > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Harshit Chopra wrote: > > Adding function attributes: 'always_patch_for_instrumentation' and

Re: [google] Add attributes: always_patch_for_instrumentation and never_patch_for_instrumentation (issue6821051)

(production binary ..) > 3) Interesting examples of use cases (with graphs). > > thanks, > > David > > On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Harshit Chopra wrote: >> Thanks David for the review. My comments are inline. >> >> >> On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 12:38 PM

[google] Add function name to function_patch_* sections (issue9025045)

Adding function name to the function_patch_* sections when -ffunction-sections is provided. Helps in garbage collecting dead functions with the help of linker. Tested: Tested using 'make -k check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="i386.exp=patch* --target_board=unix\{-m32,,-m64\}"'.

[google] Port revisions for -mpatch-functions-for-instrumentation option back to google-main. (issue7301068)

2013-02-08 Harshit Chopra Porting revisions r183548, r183888, r186118, r192231, r193381. diff --git a/gcc/c-family/c-common.c b/gcc/c-family/c-common.c index ab416ff..04b973f 100644 --- a/gcc/c-family/c-common.c +++ b/gcc/c-family/c-common.c @@ -396,6 +396,13 @@ static tree

[google] Minor cleanup and test fixes for -mpatch-functions-for-instrumentation. (issue5877043)

2012-03-21 Harshit Chopra Minor changes: i386.c: made check_should_patch_current_function C90 compatible. i386.md: Added '\t' to bytes generated by ix86_output_function_nops_prologue_epilogue for proper formatting of assembly. patch-functions-

Patch to enable efficient function level instrumentation (issue5416043)

>From f63ec02c0a720174489fe450b3cc43eb00fd4bdd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Harshit Chopra Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 17:29:23 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] Mechanism to provide efficient function instrumentation (x86-64) Summary: This patch aims at providing an efficient way to instrument a binary

Re: [google] Patch to enable efficient function level instrumentation

Ping! -- Harshit

MAINTAINERS file diff after adding myself

...@redhat.com  Fabien Ch�ne                                   fab...@gcc.gnu.org +Harshit Chopra        hars...@google.com  William Cohen                                  wco...@redhat.com  Josh Conner                                    jcon...@apple.com  R. Kelley Cook                                 kc

[google] Fixing function patching tests (issue5626049)

Fixes the following tests by restricting them to 64-bit target environment. Tested: Using 'make -k check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="i386.exp=patch* --target_board=unix\{-m32,,-m64\}"' and crosstool-validate.py script. Patch to be applied to google/main branch. 2012-02

Re: [google] Fixing function patching tests (issue5626049)

Thanks for the review. Committed to google-main. -- Harshit On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote: > ok for google branches. > > David > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 3:20 PM, Harshit Chopra wrote: >> Fixes the following tests by restricting them to 64-b