This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH i386] Allow sibcalls in no-PLT PIC
- From: Rich Felker <dalias at libc dot org>
- To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>, Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>, Alexander Monakov <amonakov at ispras dot ru>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com>
- Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 16:15:57 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH i386] Allow sibcalls in no-PLT PIC
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAMe9rOp1ibVzf0KOt+1boOxb5ag85fe2Rv2Rst=CgAtOTGFBxA at mail dot gmail dot com> <20150515230810 dot GA73210 at kam dot mff dot cuni dot cz> <CAMe9rOr1_r0tvi_JdsCL8w-MMAqhSeVpA6sbksnn1yP224zn_A at mail dot gmail dot com> <20150515234403 dot GG17573 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx> <alpine dot LSU dot 2 dot 20 dot 1505191637140 dot 27315 at wotan dot suse dot de> <20150519180659 dot GG17573 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx> <555B87F4 dot 30908 at redhat dot com> <CAMe9rOpPa9edYxaHQ1BOSfq4VuLsEQZHB=hXxdagTXpqv2qc=A at mail dot gmail dot com> <555B8ACD dot 20503 at redhat dot com> <CAMe9rOq4-F7+LCxee82LzFS9WjvfErZCDoS=TraXPsakRnyJRQ at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 12:17:18PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Richard Henderson <email@example.com> wrote:
> > On 05/19/2015 12:06 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Richard Henderson <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.
> > I well understand what you're doing.
> > But my point is that the only time the compiler should present you with the
> > form of indirect branch you're looking for is when there's no place to hoist
> > the load.
> > At which point, is it really worth adding a new relocation to the ABI? Is it
> > really worth adding new code to the linker that won't be exercised often?
> I believe there are plenty of indirect branches via GOT when compiling
> PIE/PIC with -fno-plt:
> [hjl@gnu-6 gcc]$ cat /tmp/x.c
> extern void foo (void);
> bar (void)
> foo ();
> [hjl@gnu-6 gcc]$ ./xgcc -B./ -fPIC -O3 -S /tmp/x.c -fno-plt
> [hjl@gnu-6 gcc]$ cat x.s
> ..file "x.c"
> ..section .text.unlikely,"ax",@progbits
> ..p2align 4,,15
> ..globl bar
> ..type bar, @function
> jmp *foo@GOTPCREL(%rip)
> ..size bar, .-bar
I agree these exist. What I question is whether the savings from the
linker being able to relax this to a direct call in the case where the
programmer failed to let the compiler make it a direct call to begin
with (by using hidden or protected visibility) are worth the cost of
not being able to hoist the load out of loops or schedule it earlier
in cases where relaxation is not possible because the call target is
not defined in the same DSO.