Hi Bingfeng. Thanks for pointing me at that patch, but it doesn't do what I require, which is probably fortunate because I would have wasted work otherwise!
My change incorporates the callee function name and caller function name into the new name (e.g. bar.0.foo), so that we can trace that name back to the original non-versioned function in the source, without requiring additional debugging information; a standard build contains all the info we need because it is held in the function names. Are there any versioning tests for the patch you mention? Cheers, Ian > -----Original Message----- > From: Bingfeng Mei [mailto:b...@broadcom.com] > Sent: 22 February 2010 09:58 > To: Ian Bolton; gcc@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: RE: Function versioning tests? > > Hi, > GCC 4.5 already contains such patch. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc- > patches/2009-03/msg01186.html > If you are working on 4.4 branch, you can just apply the patch without > problem. > > Cheers, > Bingfeng > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On > > Behalf Of Ian Bolton > > Sent: 19 February 2010 17:09 > > To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org > > Subject: Function versioning tests? > > > > Hi there, > > > > I've changed our private port of GCC to give versioned functions > > better names (rather than T.0, T.1), and was wondering if there > > are any existing tests that push function-versioning to the limit, > > so I can test whether my naming scheme is sound. > > > > Failing that, I'd appreciate some pointers on how I might make > > such a test. I know I need to be passing a constant in as a > > parameter, but I don't know what other criteria are required to > > make it trigger. > > > > Cheers, > > Ian > > > >
