public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "gabriel at inconstante dot net.br" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug lto/98971] New: LTO removes __patchable_function_entries Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2021 21:37:20 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-98971-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98971 Bug ID: 98971 Summary: LTO removes __patchable_function_entries Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: lto Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: gabriel at inconstante dot net.br CC: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Building with -flto removes the effects of -fpatchable-function-entries, or at least some of them. For instance, building the following code: $ cat libtesta.c int testa7(void) { return 7; } with: $ gcc libtesta.c -fPIC -fpatchable-function-entry=4,2 -flto -c -o libtesta.o $ gcc libtesta.o -flto -shared -o libtesta.so removes the nop padding usually generated with -fpatchable-function-entry, as well as it removes the __patchable_function_entries section from the resulting binaries. The intermediate libtesta.o already lacks both: $ readelf --sections libtesta.o | grep __patchable $ readelf --sections libtesta.so | grep __patchable $ objdump -d libtesta.so | grep "<testa7>:" -C3 00000000000010f0 <frame_dummy>: 10f0: e9 7b ff ff ff jmpq 1070 <register_tm_clones> 00000000000010f5 <testa7>: 10f5: 55 push %rbp 10f6: 48 89 e5 mov %rsp,%rbp 10f9: b8 07 00 00 00 mov $0x7,%eax Without -flto, I get what I expected: $ readelf --sections libtesta.o | grep __patchable [ 4] __patchable_[...] PROGBITS 0000000000000000 00000050 $ readelf --sections libtesta.so | grep __patchable [19] __patchable_[...] PROGBITS 0000000000004020 00003020 $ objdump -d libtesta.so | grep "<testa7>:" -C3 10f5: 90 nop 10f6: 90 nop 00000000000010f7 <testa7>: 10f7: 90 nop 10f8: 90 nop 10f9: 55 push %rbp Building with a single gcc command, such as: $ gcc libtesta.c -fPIC -fpatchable-function-entry=4,2 -flto -shared -o libtesta.so also works as I expected, i.e.: the nops and the __patchable_function_entries are kept. Is this the intended behavior? Am I using it wrong? Or is this a bug? Cheers PS: Tested with the branch for gcc 10, with trunk, and with the compilers from openSUSE and Debian.
next reply other threads:[~2021-02-04 21:37 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-02-04 21:37 gabriel at inconstante dot net.br [this message] 2021-02-05 8:09 ` [Bug lto/98971] " marxin at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-02-05 12:18 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-02-05 13:11 ` gagomes at suse dot de 2021-02-05 13:27 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-02-05 13:41 ` gagomes at suse dot de 2021-02-08 11:31 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-02-08 11:32 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-02-09 9:02 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
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=bug-98971-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \ --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.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: linkBe 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).