> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 10:47 AM, Jan Hubicka <hubi...@ucw.cz> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 9:03 AM, Jan Hubicka <hubi...@ucw.cz> wrote:
> >> >> > What is the reason for using different names for return and indirect
> >> >> > thunks at first place?
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> These 2 thunks are identical. But one may want to provide an
> >> >> alternate thunk only for
> >> >> indirect branch and leaves return thunk alone. You can't do that if
> >> >> both have the same
> >> >> name.
> >> >
> >> > Hmm, OK, what is the benefit to have two different thunks? It is just
> >> > safety precaution so we could adjust one without adjusting the other in
> >> > future?
> >> >
> >>
> >> That is correct.
> >
> > Hmm, I guess the patch is OK. Things are slightly more flexible this way and
> > duplicating thunk is not terribly expensive. One can always link with
> > non-comdat+ alias.
> >
>
> That is true. OK to backport to GCC 7 after a few days?
OK. I suppose you are testing return thunks on some real environment, like GCC
bootstrap :)
Honza
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> H.J.
