This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [I don't think it's off-topic at all] Linking speed for C++
- To: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- Subject: Re: [I don't think it's off-topic at all] Linking speed for C++
- From: Michael Matz <matz at kde dot org>
- Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 01:56:27 +0200 (MET DST)
- cc: Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot COM>, <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
On Tue, 29 May 2001, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 12:16:11AM +0200, Michael Matz wrote:
> > I have the feeling, that -Bsymbolic should only be applied to functions
> > (or other things for which indirection already exists), and not to data.
> The rules can't be changed now. In any case, there are situations
> in which you _want_ -Bsymbolic to apply to data. Namely, when the
> data is private and not used between shared objects.
Of course, of course, but is there some inherent requirement which would
rule out a -Bsymbolic_for_fun(c), i.e. is it somehow required, that if
code-symbols are resolved at link-time intra-DSO-wise, then also data
symbols need to be? I guess not, as otherwise the more finegraned ELF
visibility stuff wouldn't be possible (I guess DT_DYNAMIC can't be set as
that really means also to resolve data). I quickly browsed through bfd
for the use of the .symbolic flag, and it seems to be only on some
distinct places, so a .but_only_for_funcs flag might be feasible. Or?