skan added a comment. In D70157#1747428 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D70157#1747428>, @davezarzycki wrote:
> In D70157#1746793 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D70157#1746793>, @MaskRay wrote: > > > On x86, the preferred function alignment is 16 > > (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/arcpatch-D70157/llvm/lib/Target/X86/X86ISelLowering.cpp#L1893), > > which is the default function alignment in text sections. If the > > cross-boundary decision is made with alignment=32 > > (--x86-align-branch-boundary=32) in mind, and the section alignment is > > still 16 (not increased to 32 or higher), the linker may place the section > > at an address which equals 16 modulo 32, the section contents will thus > > shift by 16. The instructions that do not cross the boundary in the object > > files may cross the boundary in the linker output. Have you considered > > increasing the section alignment to 32? > > > > Shall we default to -mbranches-within-32B-boundaries if the specified > > -march= or -mtune= may be affected by the erratum? > > > That isn't good enough. Even though core2 isn't affected by the erratum, > core2 code can run on CPUs that do have the bug (and core2 is a popular > target for code that needs to run "everywhere"), therefore all target CPUs > that predate a hardware fix really ought to have -mbranches-within-32B-boundaries by default. Make sense, I will enable it later. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D70157/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D70157 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
