On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 11:39 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:51 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:31 AM, Richard Guenther >> <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:31 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 8:57 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 6:05 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 7:57 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:40 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 12:28 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 2:40 AM, Richard Guenther >>>>>>>>> <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:12 AM, H.J. Lu <hongjiu...@intel.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 05:20:48PM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> This patch uses .init_array/.fini_array sections instead of >>>>>>>>>>>> .ctors/.dtors sections if mixing .init_array/.fini_array and >>>>>>>>>>>> .ctors/.dtors sections with init_priority works. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It removes .ctors/.ctors sections from executables and DSOes, >>>>>>>>>>>> which will >>>>>>>>>>>> remove one function call at startup time from each executable and >>>>>>>>>>>> DSO. >>>>>>>>>>>> It should reduce image size and improve system startup time. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If a platform with a working .init_array/.fini_array support needs >>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>> different .init_array/.fini_array implementation, it can set >>>>>>>>>>>> use_initfini_array to no. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Since .init_array/.fini_array is a target feature. >>>>>>>>>>>> --enable-initfini-array >>>>>>>>>>>> is default to no unless the native run-time test is passed. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> To pass the native run-time test, a linker with >>>>>>>>>>>> SORT_BY_INIT_PRIORITY >>>>>>>>>>>> support is required. The binutils patch is available at >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2010-12/msg00466.html >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Linker patch has been checked in. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This patch passed 32bit/64bit regression test on Linux/x86-64. Any >>>>>>>>>>>> comments? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This updated patch fixes build on Linux/ia64 and should work on >>>>>>>>>>> others. >>>>>>>>>>> Any comments? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yes. This is stage1 material. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Here is the updated patch. OK for trunk? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> H.J. >>>>>>>>> ---- >>>>>>>>> 2011-03-14 H.J. Lu <hongjiu...@intel.com> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> PR target/46770 >>>>>>>>> * acinclude.m4 (gcc_AC_INITFINI_ARRAY): Removed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * config.gcc (use_initfini_array): New variable. >>>>>>>>> Use initfini-array.o if supported. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * crtstuff.c: Don't generate .ctors nor .dtors sections if >>>>>>>>> NO_CTORS_DTORS_SECTIONS is defined. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * configure.ac: Remove gcc_AC_INITFINI_ARRAY. Add >>>>>>>>> --enable-initfini-array and check if .init_array can be used >>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>> .ctors. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * configure: Regenerated. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * config/initfini-array.c: New. >>>>>>>>> * config/initfini-array.h: Likewise. >>>>>>>>> * config/t-initfini-array: Likewise. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * config/arm/arm.c (arm_asm_init_sections): Call >>>>>>>>> elf_initfini_array_init_sections if NO_CTORS_DTORS_SECTIONS >>>>>>>>> is defined. >>>>>>>>> * config/avr/avr.c (avr_asm_init_sections): Likewise. >>>>>>>>> * config/ia64/ia64.c (ia64_asm_init_sections): Likewise. >>>>>>>>> * config/mep/mep.c (mep_asm_init_sections): Likewise. >>>>>>>>> * config/microblaze/microblaze.c >>>>>>>>> (microblaze_elf_asm_init_sections): >>>>>>>>> Likewise. >>>>>>>>> * config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_elf_asm_init_sections): >>>>>>>>> Likewise. >>>>>>>>> * config/stormy16/stormy16.c (xstormy16_asm_init_sections): >>>>>>>>> Likewise. >>>>>>>>> * config/v850/v850.c (v850_asm_init_sections): Likewise. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> PING: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg00760.html >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Any comments? Any objections? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Here is the patch updated for the current trunk. OK for trunk? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> PING,. >>>> >>>> Hi Richard, >>>> >>>> You commented my patch was stage 1 material: >>>> >>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-01/msg01989.html >>>> >>>> Is my patch: >>>> >>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg00760.html >>>> >>>> OK for trunk? >>> >>> I can't approve the configury changes and would like to defer >>> to target maintainers for the target specific changes. That said, >>> I'm not familiar enough with the area of the patch. But yes, >>> it's stage1 now - so if anyone else wants to approve this patch... >> >> My first attempt: >> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg00589.html >> >> only affects x86. I changed it to generic based on the >> feedbacks. But other target maintainers show no interests. >> Should I make it x86 only first? Each target can enable it >> if needed. >> > > I am enclosing 2 patches here. One only affects Linux/x86 > and the other covers all targets. I tested both versions on > Linux/x86 without any regressions. Since I only got OK from > one target maintainer and I have been pinging on this patch > for more than 6 months, I'd like to get it enabled for Linux/x86 > soon. >
Hi Ian, I'd like to get this issue resolved, at least for Linux/x86. Can you recommend how I should proceed? Thanks. -- H.J.
