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: [PATCH x86_64] Optimize access to globals in "-fpie -pie" builds with copy relocations


On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Sriraman Tallam <tmsriram@google.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 1:29 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Sriraman Tallam <tmsriram@google.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 11:25:38AM -0800, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>>>>> This was the original patch to i386.c to let global accesses take
>>>>> advantage of copy relocations and avoid the GOT.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> @@ -13113,7 +13113,11 @@ legitimate_pic_address_disp_p (rtx disp)
>>>>>   return true;
>>>>>      }
>>>>>    else if (!SYMBOL_REF_FAR_ADDR_P (op0)
>>>>> -   && SYMBOL_REF_LOCAL_P (op0)
>>>>> +   && (SYMBOL_REF_LOCAL_P (op0)
>>>>> +       || (HAVE_LD_PIE_COPYRELOC
>>>>> +   && flag_pie
>>>>> +   && !SYMBOL_REF_WEAK (op0)
>>>>> +   && !SYMBOL_REF_FUNCTION_P (op0)))
>>>>>     && ix86_cmodel != CM_LARGE_PIC)
>>>>>
>>>>> I do not understand here why weak global data access must go through
>>>>> the GOT and not use copy relocations. Ultimately, there is only going
>>>>> to be one copy of the global either defined in the executable or the
>>>>> shared object right?
>>>>>
>>>>> Can we remove the check for SYMBOL_REF_WEAK?
>>>>
>>>> So, what will then happen if the weak undef symbol isn't defined anywhere?
>>>> In non-PIE binaries that is fine, the linker will store 0.
>>>> But in PIE binaries, the 0 would be biased by the PIE load bias and thus
>>>> wouldn't be NULL.
>>>
>>> Thanks for clarifying.
>>>
>>>> You can only optimize weak vars if there is some weak definition in the
>>>> current TU.
>>>
>>> Would this be fine then?  Replace !SYMBOL_REF_WEAK (op0) with
>>>
>>> !(SYMBOL_REF_WEAK (op0) && SYMBOL_REF_EXTERNAL_P (op0))
>>>
>>
>> The full condition is:
>>
>>                   && (SYMBOL_REF_LOCAL_P (op0)
>>                        || (HAVE_LD_PIE_COPYRELOC
>>                            && flag_pie
>>                            && !SYMBOL_REF_WEAK (op0)
>>                            && !SYMBOL_REF_FUNCTION_P (op0)))
>>
>> If the weak op0 is defined in the current TU, shouldn't
>> SYMBOL_REF_LOCAL_P (op0)  be true for PIE?
>
> Thats not what I see for this:
>
> zap.cc
> ---------
> __attribute__((weak))
> int glob;
>
> int main()
> {
>    printf("%d\n", glob);
> }
>
> (gdb) p debug_rtx(op0)
> (symbol_ref/i:DI ("glob") <var_decl 0x7ffff74f51c8 glob>)
>
> (gdb) p SYMBOL_REF_LOCAL_P(op0)
> $4 = false
>
> (gdb) p SYMBOL_REF_WEAK (op0)
> $5 = 1
>
> (gdb) p SYMBOL_REF_EXTERNAL_P (op0)
> $6 = false
>
> Thanks

So we aren't SYMBOL_REF_EXTERNAL_P nor
SYMBOL_REF_LOCAL_P.  What do we reference?



-- 
H.J.


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