On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 10:40:10AM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote: > Since you proposed to update the documentation, I'm thinking if we can > reconsider Fangrui's proposal in the PR which Alan seconded: Put preceding > nops before GEP and succeeding nops after LEP. Previously I had the concern > that the nops inserted doesn't respect to a same function entry, it looks > inconsistent to the documentation, and you also noted that "The nops have > to be consecutive". If we want to update the documentation, could we reword > it for PowerPC ELFv2 ABI? > > What's your opinion?
I'm not sure what the question is, sorry. If you want different semantics for ELFv2 (which might well be useful), we need some new command line option for that. I suggested here to just describe in the existing doc what is done for global and local entry points on ELFv2. Segher
