On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 08:56:23AM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote: > On 5/23/19 6:06 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 06:39:55PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote: > >> @@ -26191,6 +26191,10 @@ rs6000_global_entry_point_needed_p (void) > >> if (TARGET_SINGLE_PIC_BASE) > >> return false; > >> > >> + /* PC-relative functions never generate a global entry point prologue. > >> */ > >> + if (rs6000_pcrel_p (cfun)) > >> + return false; > > "global_entry_point_needed" is such a confusing name; it isn't what this > > function is about. "global entry point prologue" like in your comment > > is much closer to the truth, but also not exactly it. > > > > Maybe we should rename this function. And/or split it into two. > I think "global entry point prologue" is exactly right, and the > function-level comment even says that. So we could change this to > rs6000_global_entry_point_prologue_needed_p. A bit chewy but digestible.
So I see the second use really needs the same condition... okay. What it checks is if the function needs a local entry point not equal to the global entry point. Anyway... Not too important, the function isn't used in many places at all. Segher
