On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 4:00 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 03:55:52AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote: >> > I'm wondering whether thunk creation can be a good target-independent >> > generalization? I guess >> > we can emit the function declaration without direct writes to >> > asm_out_file? And the emission >> > of function body can be potentially a target hook? >> > >> > What about emitting body of the function with RTL instructions instead of >> > direct assembly write? >> > My knowledge of RTL is quite small, but maybe it can bring some >> > generalization and reusability >> > for other targets? >> >> Thunks are x86 specific and they are created the same way as 32-bit PIC >> thunks. >> I don't see how a target hook is used. > > Talking about PIC thunks, those have I believe . character in their symbols, > so that they can't be confused with user functions. Any reason these > retpoline thunks aren't? >
They used to have '.'. It was changed at the last minute since kernel needs to export them as regular symbols. -- H.J.
