Re: Reducing code size of Position Independent Executables (PIE) by shrinking the size of dynamic relocations section

["Rahul Chaudhry via binutils" <binutils@sourceware.org>]

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 12:11 AM, Cary Coutant <ccoutant@gmail.com> wrote:
>> While adding a 'stride' field is definitely an improvement over simple
>> delta+count encoding, it doesn't compare well against the bitmap based
>> encoding.
>>
>> I took a look inside the encoding for the Vim binary. There are some instances
>> in the bitmap based encoding like
>>   [0x3855555555555555 0x3855555555555555 0x3855555555555555 ...]
>> that encode sequences of relocations applying to alternate words. The stride
>> based encoding works very well on these and turns it into much more compact
>>   [0x0ff010ff 0x0ff010ff 0x0ff010ff ...]
>> using stride==0x10 and count==0xff.
>
> Have you looked much at where the RELATIVE relocations are coming from?
>
> I've looked at a PIE build of gold, and they're almost all for
> vtables, which mostly have consecutive entries with 8-byte strides.
> There are a few for the GOT, a few for static constructors (in
> .init_array), and a few for other initialized data, but vtables seem
> to account for the vast majority. (Gold has almost 19,000 RELATIVE
> dynamic relocs, and only about 500 non-RELATIVE dynamic relocs.)
>
> Where do the 16-byte strides come from? Vim is plain C, right? I'm
> guessing its RELATIVE relocation count is fairly low compared to big
> C++ apps. I'm also guessing that the pattern comes from some large
> structure or structures in the source code where initialized pointers
> alternate with non-pointer values. I'm also curious about Roland's
> app.

I took a look inside vim for the source of the ..5555.. pattern (relative
relocations applying to alternate words). One of the sources is the
"builtin_termcaps" symbol, which is an array of "struct builtin_term":

  struct builtin_term
  {
    int   bt_entry;
    char  *bt_string;
  };

So the pattern makes sense. An encoding using strides will work really well
here with stride == 0x10.

There is another repeating pattern I noticed in vim ..9999... One of the
sources behind this pattern is the "cmdnames" symbol, which is an array of
"struct cmdname":

  struct cmdname
  {
    char_u      *cmd_name;      /* name of the command */
    ex_func_T   cmd_func;       /* function for this command */
    long_u      cmd_argt;       /* flags declared above */
    int         cmd_addr_type;  /* flag for address type */
  };

In this struct, the first two fields are pointers, and the next two are
scalars. This explains the ..9999.. pattern for relative relocations. This is
an example where a stride based encoding does not work well, simply because
there is no single stride. The deltas are 8,24,8,24,8,24,...

I think these two examples demonstrate the main weakness of using a simple
stride based encoding: it is too sensitive to how the data structures are laid
out in the program source.

Rahul