This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Bogus position independent code(PIC) emitted for ColdFire v4e
- From: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at bitrange dot com>
- To: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Peter Barada <pbarada at mail dot wm dot sps dot mot dot com>, <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, <Peter dot Barada at motorola dot com>, <peter at baradas dot org>
- Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 01:33:50 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: Bogus position independent code(PIC) emitted for ColdFire v4e
On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 12:46:19PM -0500, Peter Barada wrote:
> > Should I use ENCODE_SECTION_INFO for m68k/ColdFire, or bite the bullet
> > and go the UNSPEC route?
>
> I think you're better off going the UNSPEC route.
Any particular reason?
I chose the ENCODE_SECTION_INFO route for CRIS, because in a
perfect GCC, going that route would supposedly enable GCC to
optimize symbol references (for example, combining foo and
foo+N). (Context: the UNSPEC route forbids GCC from looking
through the UNSPEC.)
Right, I *also* use (CONST) UNSPEC, for references that should
go through PLT, expanded at call and call_value. No harm done
since function references are supposedly not combinable.
brgds, H-P