> Yes. This is not necessary. However that way we'll have the following
> code in dispatcher:
> cmpl $6, __cpu_model+4(%rip)
> sete %al
> movzbl %al, %eax
> testl %eax, %eax
> jle .L16
> movl $foo.target_clone.1, %eax
> I think it is very hard to read and debug such...
>
> While now we have:
>
> cmpl $6, __cpu_model+4(%rip)
> sete %al
> movzbl %al, %eax
> testl %eax, %eax
> jle .L16
> movl $foo.arch_slm, %eax
>
> and it is clear that we are jumping to SLM code here.
> I'd like to keep target in names.
I am not against more informative names, but why you don't pass the info here:
+create_target_clone (cgraph_node *node, bool definition)
+{
+ cgraph_node *new_node;
+ if (definition)
+ {
+ new_node = node->create_version_clone_with_body (vNULL, NULL,
+ NULL, false,
+ NULL, NULL,
+ "target_clone");
+ new_node->force_output = true;
+ }
+ else
+ {
+ tree new_decl = copy_node (node->decl);
+ new_node = cgraph_node::get_create (new_decl);
+ }
+ return new_node;
+}
passing "arch_slm" instead of target_clone will get you the name you want
(plus the extra index that may be needed anyway to disambiguate).
Note that in general those .suffixes should be machine parseable, so
cp-demangle.c
can expand them correctly. We may want to have some consistent grammar for
them here
and update cp-demangle.c to output nice info like "target clone for..."
I will look at the rest of the patch at evening.
Honza
>
> Thanks,
> Evgeny
> >
> >
> > Jeff
