From: Torbjorn Granlund <t...@gmplib.org> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 23:19:40 +0100
> David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> writes: > > From: ni...@lysator.liu.se (Niels Möller) > Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 22:22:28 +0100 > > > Furthermore, gmp needs to be portable to non-glibc systems as well. We > > have a "fat binary" machinery that tries to solve the same problem, but > > in a more portable way. Choosing between using IFUNC or the portable > > machinery at configure time sounds like it could be a lots of additional > > complexity. > > I don't like this kind of logic. > > What is the point in creating significantly beneficial facilities like > IFUNC if the greatest potential benefactors, such as libgmp, use > straw-men like this to justify not using it? > > This just rude. Why don't you give valid arguments instead? We'd like > to hear your opinion! My opinion is that IFUNC is valuable for the sake of turning what would be two calls, into one through the PLT which is the minimum you can get away with. If you use function pointer tables, you have to do this through another function so that you are at liberty to change the layout and size of that function pointer table. That's one call through the PLT for a shared library. Then you need to do the indirect call through the function table itself. With IFUNC the PLT resolves to the method that gets choosen by the IFUNC resolver, and that's it. _______________________________________________ gmp-devel mailing list gmp-devel@gmplib.org http://gmplib.org/mailman/listinfo/gmp-devel
