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 i386]: always allow for pe-coff that relocations can be put into readonly memory

From: Mike Stump <mikestump at comcast dot net>
To: Kai Tietz <ktietz70 at gmail dot com>
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:50:42 -0700
Subject: Re: [patch i386]: always allow for pe-coff that relocations can be put into readonly memory
References: <CAEwic4ZT4MGh4qvo5ycSsz-3dt43irqVP6F7QQYBW1fEOx+-Kg@mail.gmail.com> <4FEB694F.3030101@redhat.com>

On Jun 27, 2012, at 1:13 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> Would it be of any use to introduce an .rdata$N section (equivalent
> to .data.ro) so that most of the runtime relocations are adjacent,
> and more of the executable image is sharable?

I can't help but think that grouping them together would be a win, provided the relocations are allowed...  I know on darwin, we kinda hate those sorts of relocations because they are a performance sap.  This type of performance sap is nasty as it is pervasive and invisible and hard to ever get back.  Would be nice to ensure any change applied doesn't hurt performance...

References:
- [patch i386]: always allow for pe-coff that relocations can be put into readonly memory
  - From: Kai Tietz
- Re: [patch i386]: always allow for pe-coff that relocations can be put into readonly memory
  - From: Richard Henderson

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