[PATCH/RFA] SH TLS support

[Joern Rennecke]

kaz Kojima wrote:
> 
> Joern Rennecke <joern.rennecke@superh.com> wrote:
> > I don't see why we need new relocation numbers.  Can't we just extend
> > the scope of the existing BFD_RELOC_SH_COUNT and BFD_RELOC_SH_USES
> That's a very good idea for GD and LD cases. It seems that Initial
> Exec (IE) case needs new relocations yet. If non-fixed sequence is
> used, IE code will be like:
> 
>         mov.l   L1, r0
>         stc     gbr, r1
>         mov.l   @(r0,r12), r0
>         add    r1, r0
>         ...
>         (constant pool)
> L1:      .long   x@GOTTPOFF
> 
> and all 4 instructions should be marked as TLS code.
> 
> BTW, I took a simple linker statistics in cross build of glibc.
> 
>         (type)  (in)    (out)
>         GD      8793    8793
>         LD      72      72
>         IE      1347    125
>         LE      34      1256
> 
> I could be wrong about it and it would be not typical, but it seems
> high percentage of TLS relocations are non relaxable GD and almost
> transitions occur as IE->LE. If it is general tendency, the loss of
> fixed sequences would be small and permissible for SH-3/4 case.

What does LE stand for?  How does such an IE->LE transition look like?
	
-- 
--------------------------
SuperH (UK) Ltd.
2410 Aztec West / Almondsbury / BRISTOL / BS32 4QX
T:+44 1454 465658