This is the mail archive of the 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 i386] Allow sibcalls in no-PLT PIC

On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Richard Henderson <> wrote:
> On 05/19/2015 11:06 AM, Rich Felker wrote:
>> I'm still mildly worried that concerns for supporting
>> relaxation might lead to decisions not to optimize code in ways that
>> would be difficult to relax (e.g. certain types of address load
>> reordering or hoisting) but I don't understand GCC internals
>> sufficiently to know if this concern is warranted or not.
> It is.  The relaxation that HJ is working on requires that the reads from the
> got not be hoisted.  I'm not especially convinced that what he's working on is
> a win.
> With LTO, the compiler can do the same job that he's attempting in the linker,
> without an extra nop.  Without LTO, leaving it to the linker means that you
> can't hoist the load and hide the memory latency.

My relax approach won't take away any optimization done by compiler.
It simply turns indirect branch into direct branch with a nop prefix at
link-time.  I am having a hard time to understand why we shouldn't do it.


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