This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PATCH: Optimize protected call for i386
- From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- To: "H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 17:41:14 -0700
- Subject: Re: PATCH: Optimize protected call for i386
- References: <20030512185613.A14533@lucon.org> <20030513020400.GS2166@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au> <20030512192302.A14731@lucon.org> <20030513135912.GA966@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au> <20030513142716.A20059@lucon.org> <20030514085453.GA957@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au> <20030514074940.A2376@lucon.org> <20030514230253.GD957@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au> <20030514232439.GC9567@redhat.com> <20030514165007.A10337@lucon.org>
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 04:50:07PM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > If you take the address of foo, in *any* DSO, you will not be
> > using either R_386_PC32 or R_386_PLT32. You'll be using either
> > R_386_32 or R_386_GOT32.
>
> But the currrent gcc uses R_386_GOTOFF for address of a protected
> data or function symbol on x86 when PIC is used. I will say it is
> a bug.
Agreed.
> R_386_GOT32 should be used here. I can provide a testcase if asked.
File a PR so it does not get lost.
r~