2014-05-13 23:21 GMT+04:00 Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com>: > On 05/13/14 02:38, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >>>> >>>> propagate constant bounds value and remove checks in called function). >>> >>> >>> So from a linking standpoint, presumably you have to mangle the >>> instrumented >>> caller/callee in some manner. Right? Or are you dynamically dispatching >>> somehow? >> >> >> Originally the idea was o have instrumented clone to have the same >> assembler name as the original function. Since instrumented code is >> fully compatible with not instrumented code, we always emit only one >> version. Usage of the same assembler name allows instrumented and not >> instrumented calls to look similar in assembler. It worked fine until >> I tried it with LTO where assembler name is used as a unique >> identifier. With linker resolutions files it became even more harder >> to use such approach. To resolve these issues I started to use new >> assembler name with postfix, but linked with the original name using >> IDENTIFIER_TRANSPARENT_ALIAS. It gives different assembler names for >> clones and originals during compilation, but both clone and original >> functions have similar name in output assembler. > > OK. So if I read that correctly, it implies that the existence of bounds > information does not change the signature of the callee. This is obviously > important for C++. > > Sounds like I need to sit down with the branch and see how this works in the > new scheme.
Both mpx branch and Wiki (http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Intel%20MPX%20support%20in%20the%20GCC%20compiler) page are up-to-date now and may be tried out either in NOP mode or with simulator. Let me know if you have any troubles with using it. Ilya > > jeff
