From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <binutils-return-76947-listarch-binutils=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 6631 invoked by alias); 1 Sep 2012 17:22:13 -0000
Received: (qmail 6608 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Sep 2012 17:22:11 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.8 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail-vb0-f41.google.com (HELO mail-vb0-f41.google.com) (209.85.212.41)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Sep 2012 17:21:58 +0000
Received: by vbkv13 with SMTP id v13so4830313vbk.0        for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 01 Sep 2012 10:21:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.38.65 with SMTP id e1mr6556478vdk.110.1346520117340; Sat, 01 Sep 2012 10:21:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.58.234.39 with HTTP; Sat, 1 Sep 2012 10:21:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <50423CF8.7000309@twiddle.net>
References: <503E009B.3080302@linux.vnet.ibm.com>	<CAMe9rOrmiF3VZOBNvEbMV5jFNog1-_EoPoT9rHTUQFsANaSD8w@mail.gmail.com>	<503E3930.5040603@linux.vnet.ibm.com>	<20120829.125208.824114683359549094.davem@davemloft.net>	<503F14A3.8070801@linux.vnet.ibm.com>	<CAMe9rOozW=4q_a=nmNvbZhsXooRZ4opvTTNtq2WHcGSSd2ONOw@mail.gmail.com>	<CAMe9rOpc7KHMXk8xrQV3p2fAn-uTWZJ91R6k=DbCXENs43Kemw@mail.gmail.com>	<5040CCC6.4030809@twiddle.net>	<CAMe9rOr2Vic9vENNbRf5_z22-kMS2Uu-6Lsgd_Xi6bctw6CF4w@mail.gmail.com>	<50423CF8.7000309@twiddle.net>
Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2012 17:22:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAMe9rOor=+aUhtadjDWzT9gHJvteZouk7-cvF_U=k=2vdFgsNA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] S/390: Fix two issues with the IFUNC optimized mem* routines
From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
To: Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>
Cc: Andreas Krebbel <krebbel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, aj@suse.com, 	libc-alpha@sourceware.org, Binutils <binutils@sourceware.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <binutils.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:binutils-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/>
List-Post: <mailto:binutils@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:binutils-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-09/txt/msg00007.txt.bz2

On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net> wrote:
> On 2012-08-31 11:09, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> This is an excellent idea.  But  relax_section is too late for
>> x86 and x86-64.  I need to do it in size_dynamic_sections
>> so that we can get proper GOT entries.
>
> It's not too late.  Look at some of the other ports.
>

It may work for other targets.  But x86 doesn't have a relax
pass.  I believe doing it in size_dynamic_sections is more
sensible.


-- 
H.J.