There's one problem with the couple of patches that I've seen go by wrt eliding
PLTs with -z now, and relaxing inlined PLTs (aka -fno-plt):
They're currently using the same relocations used by data, and thus the linker
and dynamic linker must ensure that pointer equality is maintained. Which
resu
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> There's one problem with the couple of patches that I've seen go by wrt
> eliding
> PLTs with -z now, and relaxing inlined PLTs (aka -fno-plt):
>
> They're currently using the same relocations used by data, and thus the linker
> and dyna
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> There's one problem with the couple of patches that I've seen go by wrt
> eliding
> PLTs with -z now, and relaxing inlined PLTs (aka -fno-plt):
>
> They're currently using the same relocations used by data, and thus the linker
> and dyna
Adding ia32/x86-64 psABI.
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 5:44 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> There's one problem with the couple of patches that I've seen go by wrt
>> eliding
>> PLTs with -z now, and relaxing inlined PLTs (aka -fno-plt):
>>
>> They'r
On 05/28/2015 04:27 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> You get consecutive jmpq's because x86 PLT entry is used as the
> canonical function address. If you compile main with -fno-plt -fPIE, you
> get:
Well, duh. If the main executable has no PLTs, they aren't used as the
canonical function address. Surely yo
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 8:29 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 05/28/2015 04:27 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> You get consecutive jmpq's because x86 PLT entry is used as the
>> canonical function address. If you compile main with -fno-plt -fPIE, you
>> get:
>
> Well, duh. If the main executable has no P
On 05/28/2015 08:42 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 8:29 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> On 05/28/2015 04:27 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> You get consecutive jmpq's because x86 PLT entry is used as the
>>> canonical function address. If you compile main with -fno-plt -fPIE, you
>>> get:
>>
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 08:52:28AM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 05/28/2015 08:42 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 8:29 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> >> On 05/28/2015 04:27 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >>> You get consecutive jmpq's because x86 PLT entry is used as the
> >>> canonica
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 08:52:28AM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> On 05/28/2015 08:42 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 8:29 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> >> On 05/28/2015 04:27 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> >>> You get consecuti
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 08:29:31AM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 05/28/2015 04:27 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > You get consecutive jmpq's because x86 PLT entry is used as the
> > canonical function address. If you compile main with -fno-plt -fPIE, you
> > get:
>
> Well, duh. If the main executa
On 05/28/2015 10:59 AM, Rich Felker wrote:
Am I missing something?
You're not missing anything. But do you want the performance of a library to
depend on how the main executable is compiled?
r~
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:41:10AM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 05/28/2015 10:59 AM, Rich Felker wrote:
> >Am I missing something?
>
> You're not missing anything. But do you want the performance of a
> library to depend on how the main executable is compiled?
Not directly. But I'd rathe
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 03:29:02PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> > You're not missing anything. But do you want the performance of a
> > library to depend on how the main executable is compiled?
>
> Not directly. But I'd rather be in that situation than have
> pessimizations in library codegen to a
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 09:40:57PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 03:29:02PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> > > You're not missing anything. But do you want the performance of a
> > > library to depend on how the main executable is compiled?
> >
> > Not directly. But I'd rathe
On 05/28/2015 01:36 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 09:40:57PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 03:29:02PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
You're not missing anything. But do you want the performance of a
library to depend on how the main executable is co
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 8:38 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 05/28/2015 01:36 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
>> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 09:40:57PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 03:29:02PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> You're not missing anything. But do you want the performa
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 10:59 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 8:38 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> On 05/28/2015 01:36 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 09:40:57PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 03:29:02PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
>> Yo
17 matches
Mail list logo
