On Tue, 27 Jan 2015, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 10:04:38AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Tue, 27 Jan 2015, Andreas Krebbel wrote: > > > I would like to apply the following patch: > > > > > > [PATCH] S/390: -mhotpatch v2 > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-01/msg02370.html > > > > > > It is a backend only change to our existing -mhotpatch feature > > > requested by the Linux kernel guys for the ftrace implementation: > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/1/26/320 > > > > > > They need it in an upstream GCC asap. If we don't get it into 5.0 we > > > probably would need to commit it onto 5.1 branch right after the > > > release. I would rather try to avoid this since it would make the > > > hotpatch feature incompatible between 5.0 and 5.1. > > > > > > Ok to do it now? > > > > Ok. It needs an entry in changes.html. > > > > Do you plan to backport this change? > > > > Did you consider using an alternate option name instead of changing > > it in an incompatible way? I realize SUSE will need to backport this > > Yeah, the option incompatibility worries me. Can't -mhotpatch without = > stand for the old behavior? Does it map to some -mhotpatch=X,Y value, > or is it not worth to support both?
It maps to -mhotpatch=12. The old one had one argument while the new one has two... so eventually you can distinguish them this way, though for the inlining I'd have added -minline-hotpatched and if you switch the arguments of the new hotpatch then -mhotpatch=12 would trivially become supported again... Richard.
