[cfe-dev] __attribute__ ((target("XXX"))) semantic in clang and gcc

[Dmitry Polukhin via cfe-dev]

Thank you all for confirming that it is missing functionality in Clang.
Indeed proper ifunc support should be a good first step for multiversioning
support. Eric, are you working on ifunc support?

Multiversioning support will also needs name mangling enchantment to encode
target attributes.

On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 12:42 AM, Eric Christopher via cfe-dev <
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 1:00 PM David Blaikie via cfe-dev <
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger via cfe-dev <
>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 12:41:57PM -0800, David Blaikie wrote:
>>> > On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 12:18 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger via cfe-dev <
>>> > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 09:38:58AM -0800, David Blaikie via cfe-dev
>>> wrote:
>>> > > > Implementing actual multiversioning (with the overloads, ifunc
>>> > > > relocations/stub generation, etc) is not implemented currently and
>>> while
>>> > > I
>>> > > > don't know of anyone who has plans to, it's certainly something
>>> that
>>> > > could
>>> > > > be done (ie: the project isn't philosophically opposed to the
>>> feature or
>>> > > > anything).
>>> > >
>>> > > We are not? IMO creating tools for magically matching the target to
>>> > > whatever the system currently runs on is not the job of the compiler.
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > *shrug* Seems like a reasonable feature that GCC offers and people use.
>>> > What would be the problem with it?
>>>
>>> Do you want code emitted to magically call __cpuid() and match patterns
>>> or whatever on it?
>>
>>
>> That's what GCC does here, so far as I know.
>>
>>
>>> This kind of logic sounds to be exactly like the
>>> thing an application should be controlling.
>>>
>>
>> That's an option - if we surface the raw ifunc stuff, which I imagine we
>> would first before implementing the higher level function multiversioning.
>>
>> But I'm not sure it adds a lot of value to have the application write
>> that code - but sure, could take a bit of a survey and see if function
>> multiversioning is used much/worth the compiler implementation complexity
>> over just implementing ifunc and letting the user figure it out from there.
>>
>>
> *shrug* FWIW this is why I haven't really implemented this side of things
> yet. I'm not convinced that the extra syntactic sugar around it is buying
> anyone anything, not even really convinced that the ifunc stuff in general
> is worth it, but not going to object if anyone else wants to implement it.
>
> -eric
>
>
>> - Dave
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Joerg
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cfe-dev mailing list
>>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cfe-dev mailing list
>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20151209/88540a06/attachment.html>