This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Patch (and question): PowerPC -vs- const section
- To: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- Subject: Re: Patch (and question): PowerPC -vs- const section
- From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 18:05:00 -0800
- Cc: Gcc Patch List <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- References: <87vgso3tdv.fsf@creche.redhat.com>
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 02:26:20PM -0700, Tom Tromey wrote:
> I believe the comment that I deleted in the appended patch is simply
> wrong. Constant objects with pointers in libgcj don't get put into
> .data with this patch. Relocations and shared libraries (seem to)
> continue to work.
Just because it worked doesn't mean it's right. Use
objdump -p and see if there is a DT_TEXTREL entry. If
so, startup perfomance will suffer.
That said, the definition you are changing _is_ incorrect.
Any such modifications to which section is chosen should
be done with rs6000_select_section.
> My question is: what sort of testing would be sufficient? A
> no-regression run against the gcc test suite? Something more?
I'm not sure exactly how to test the -mrelocatable stuff.
Someone more familiar with that ppc hack should answer.
r~