On 18 August 2016 at 15:04, Richard Henderson <r...@twiddle.net> wrote: > or (2) ifunc
While we're on the subject, can somebody explain to me why we use ifuncs at all? I couldn't work out why it would be better than just using a straightforward function pointer -- when I tried single stepping through things the ifunc approach still seemed to indirect through some table or other so it wasn't actually resolving to a direct function call anyway. thanks -- PMM
