Re: [PATCH 1/8] Compiler attributes: GCC function alignment workarounds

[Miguel Ojeda]

On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 6:06 PM Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Sorry, that is something I had intendeed to do but I hadn't extracted a
> reproducer yet. I'll try to come up with something that can be included in the
> commit message and reported to GCC folk (and double-check at the same time that
> there's not another hidden cause)

Yeah, no worries :) I suggested it because from my quick test it
didn't appear to be reproducible trivially, so I thought having the
reproducer would be nice.

> I'm happy to move these, I just wasn't sure what the policy would be w.r.t. the
> existing __weak and __cold defitions since those end up depending upon
> __function_aligned.
>
> I assume I should move them all? i.e. move __weak as well?

Yeah, with the current policy, all should be moved since their
behavior now depends on the config (eventually).

Cheers,
Miguel