> Am 02.07.2019 um 15:39 schrieb Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>:
>
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 03:33:28PM +0200, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
>>> Am 02.07.2019 um 15:19 schrieb Segher Boessenkool
>>> <seg...@kernel.crashing.org>:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 08:02:16AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 10:51:54AM +0200, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
>>>>> +#undef TARGET_INSN_ALIGNMENT
>>>>> +#define TARGET_INSN_ALIGNMENT 16
>>>>
>>>> There already is FUNCTION_BOUNDARY for something similar, which fits in
>>>> well with STACK_BOUNDARY, PARM_BOUNDARY, many more *_BOUNDARY. I realise
>>>> you may prefer a hook, but as long as we aren't getting rid of all the
>>>> other macros, what's the point?
>>>
>>> And maybe LABEL_BOUNDARY is bettter for this than INSN_BOUNDARY as well?
>>
>> Can’t we just use FUNCTION_BOUNDARY then?
>> I think .LASANPC is always emitted at the beginning of a function.
>
> Isn't e.g. the hotpatch sequence emitted before it?
You are right, with -fpatchable-function-entry it’s moved.
So, I guess I should stick with the current approach.
I could change TARGET_INSN_ALIGNMENT hook to INSN_BOUNDARY macro if that
would better match the current design. I would still call it INSN, and
not LABEL, because LABEL can refer to data.
