From: Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com>
To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com>
Cc: binutils@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PR24444] speed up locview resolution wiht relaxable frags
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2019 01:32:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190417013218.GA14424@bubble.grove.modra.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <orftqiw0az.fsf@lxoliva.fsfla.org>
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 10:24:04AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Apr 14, 2019, Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, I believe so. In fact, fr_fix is really unsigned. Also, it is
> > an error for rs_org frags to go backwards.
>
> Nice, that makes things simpler.
>
> >> Tested on x86_64-linux-gnu, native and cross to xtensa-elf. No new
> >> testcase; the issue was just performance, not output correctness. Ok to
> >> install?
>
> > Um, the testcase object file after this patch differs from the
> > original. First readelf -wi difference shown below.
>
> Which testcase was that? I didn't catch that one.
The https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24444 reproducer
attachment.
I see differences in DW_AT_GNU_entry_view, in all cases substituting
3 for 10, or 2 for 9 (lower number after your patch). I don't know
enough to say whether this is a reasonable result.
>
> >> + /* If any frag from frag2, inclusive, to frag1, exclusive, has a
> >> + nonzero fixed length, the addresses won't be the same as long as
> >> + we reach frag1. */
> >> + bfd_boolean maybe_same_addr = off1 == 0 && off2 == (valueT)frag2->fr_fix;
>
> > Ins't it true that if the symbol offsets are not at exactly the above
> > values, then you already know the result and there's no need to
> > traverse the frags? This is assuming you can't .org backwards, which
> > is the case.
>
> Not entirely, no. Although the comments state we assume a certain
> ordering of frags, the assumption is only valid for O_gt operations
> arising from the location view machinery. It doesn't hurt if we resolve
> other O_gt operations if we can find the result, but those could have
> frags in the opposite order.
Thanks for reminding me. I wrote that comment before writing the
simplification of your patch, and there you'll note I did chase down
the second frag..
> Now, O_gt is not exactly the operation the location view machinery
> needs; O_ne (or, after negation, O_eq) would be more like it. IIRC the
> reason I went for O_gt was just that it was resolved early in a lot more
> cases than O_eq. Now, with this kind of fallback, we could actually
> introduce another operation kind that (i) resolves to zero if frags are
> not in the same (sub)section, and (ii) can safely make the optimization
> you suggested for frags in the same (sub)section, with the extra benefit
> that we know we won't ever search all the way to the end of the frag
> linked list without finding the other frag: we could assert-check that,
> and stop the search at the first nonzero-fr_fix.
>
> Would a new op with this semantics (O_incview?, vs reset view) be
> preferred?
No, if O_gt works let's go with that.
> > The following makes the changes I'm suggesting, and simplifies a few
> > more things.
>
> Thanks, I'll wait for a response to the question above before taking
> further action on this, but I'll likely integrate your change (credited
> in the ChangeLog) in the patch regardless.
--
Alan Modra
Australia Development Lab, IBM
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-17 1:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-04-13 8:57 Alexandre Oliva
2019-04-14 13:22 ` Alan Modra
2019-04-16 13:24 ` Alexandre Oliva
2019-04-17 1:32 ` Alan Modra [this message]
2019-04-24 23:18 ` Alan Modra
2019-04-30 5:49 ` Alexandre Oliva
2019-05-03 1:14 ` Alan Modra
2019-05-04 0:56 ` Alexandre Oliva
2019-05-04 3:22 ` Alexandre Oliva
2019-05-04 5:44 ` Alan Modra
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190417013218.GA14424@bubble.grove.modra.org \
--to=amodra@gmail.com \
--cc=aoliva@redhat.com \
--cc=binutils@sourceware.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).