Hi Segher, on 2022/8/23 22:33, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 10:40:10AM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote: >> Since you proposed to update the documentation, I'm thinking if we can >> reconsider Fangrui's proposal in the PR which Alan seconded: Put preceding >> nops before GEP and succeeding nops after LEP. Previously I had the concern >> that the nops inserted doesn't respect to a same function entry, it looks >> inconsistent to the documentation, and you also noted that "The nops have >> to be consecutive". If we want to update the documentation, could we reword >> it for PowerPC ELFv2 ABI? >> >> What's your opinion? > > I'm not sure what the question is, sorry. >
Sorry for confusion. The question is that if we can consider the proposal in [1], by noting the particularity on ppc64le in documentation. btw, I did some searching on why the feature supports preceding nops, and commented it in [2]. > If you want different semantics for ELFv2 (which might well be useful), > we need some new command line option for that. > Not sure if we really needs one new command line option, dual entries on ppc64le is special comparing with a normal unique function entry, couldn't it be a special case in the documentation? > I suggested here to just describe in the existing doc what is done for > global and local entry points on ELFv2. > Yeah, you have suggested nice wordings "For PowerPC with the ELFv2 ABI, there will be M nops before the local entry point, and N-M after". I thought if we can consider [1] and updated the documentation similarly like "For PowerPC with the ELFv2 ABI, there will be M nops before the global entry point, and N-M after the local entry point". [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99888#c5 [2] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99888#c10 BR, Kewen
