Sri, can you provide examples to show why putting thunks into the same section as the target function when function reorder is on can be bad ?
Thanks, David On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Sriraman Tallam <tmsri...@google.com> wrote: > Hi Honza, > > Could you review this patch when you find time? > > Thanks > Sri > > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Sriraman Tallam <tmsri...@google.com> wrote: >> Ping. >> >> On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Sriraman Tallam <tmsri...@google.com> wrote: >>> Ping. >>> >>> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Sriraman Tallam <tmsri...@google.com> >>> wrote: >>>> Ping. >>>> >>>> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Sriraman Tallam <tmsri...@google.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Ping. >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Sriraman Tallam <tmsri...@google.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I would like this patch reviewed and considered for commit when >>>>>> Stage 1 is active again. >>>>>> >>>>>> Patch Description: >>>>>> >>>>>> A C++ thunk's section name is set to be the same as the original >>>>>> function's >>>>>> section name for which the thunk was created in order to place the two >>>>>> together. This is done in cp/method.c in function use_thunk. >>>>>> However, with function reordering turned on, the original function's >>>>>> section >>>>>> name can change to something like ".text.hot.<orginal>" or >>>>>> ".text.unlikely.<original>" in function default_function_section in >>>>>> varasm.c >>>>>> based on the node count of that function. The thunk function's section >>>>>> name >>>>>> is not updated to be the same as the original here and also is not always >>>>>> correct to do it as the original function can be hotter than the thunk. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have created a patch to not name the thunk function's section to be >>>>>> the same >>>>>> as the original function when function reordering is enabled. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> Sri
