This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [RFC PATCH] Decreasing the size of .opd on ppc64

From: David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>
To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
Cc: Alan Modra <amodra at bigpond dot net dot au>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 16:51:54 -0400
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Decreasing the size of .opd on ppc64
References: <20040610120758.GE21264@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <200406101353.i5ADrx232160@makai.watson.ibm.com> <20040610190624.GK21264@devserv.devel.redhat.com>

	I do not have any fundamental objections to the first patch that
avoids the extra word for non-nested functions on PPC64 Linux.

	Why don't .opd's need relocation?  The function descriptor
encapsulates the code and TOC addresses for PIC code.

David

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [RFC PATCH] Decreasing the size of .opd on ppc64
  - From: Jakub Jelinek

References:
- [RFC PATCH] Decreasing the size of .opd on ppc64
  - From: Jakub Jelinek
- Re: [RFC PATCH] Decreasing the size of .opd on ppc64
  - From: David Edelsohn
- Re: [RFC PATCH] Decreasing the size of .opd on ppc64
  - From: Jakub Jelinek

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]