search for: ff713ce1

On 28 July 2016 at 16:14, Serge Rogatch via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Can I ask you why you chose to patch both function entrances and exits, > rather than just patching the entrances and (in the patches) pushing on the > stack the address of __xray_FunctionExit , so that the user function returns > normally (with RETQ or POP RIP or whatever else instruction)

...n > hardware and returning to an address pushed manually is an inevitable > branch mispredict in those cases. > > Cheers. > > Tim. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160729/ff713ce1/attachment.html>

Hello, Can I ask you why you chose to patch both function entrances and exits, rather than just patching the entrances and (in the patches) pushing on the stack the address of __xray_FunctionExit , so that the user function returns normally (with RETQ or POP RIP or whatever else instruction) rather than jumping into __xray_FunctionExit? By patching just the function entrances, you avoid