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: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
To: David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>
Cc: Alan Modra <amodra at bigpond dot net dot au>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 07:25:59 -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> <200406102051.i5AKpt212214@makai.watson.ibm.com>
Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>

On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 04:51:54PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> 	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.

.opd's need relocation in shared libraries and PIEs (position independent
executables).
They don't need relocations in normal executables, which are position
dependent and thus both the code and TOC addresses are known at link time.

	Jakub

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

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