From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 48822 invoked by alias); 23 Nov 2015 15:12:53 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 48765 invoked by uid 89); 23 Nov 2015 15:12:52 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: foss.arm.com Received: from foss.arm.com (HELO foss.arm.com) (217.140.101.70) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:12:50 +0000 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8606649; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 07:12:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from e105689-lin.cambridge.arm.com (e105689-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.2.207.32]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B458D3F51B; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 07:12:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH][AArch64] Documentation fix for -fpic To: Szabolcs Nagy , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" References: <56447860.6080702@arm.com> Cc: Marcus Shawcroft From: Richard Earnshaw Message-ID: <56532CEE.4050005@foss.arm.com> Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:17:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56447860.6080702@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-11/txt/msg02741.txt.bz2 On 12/11/15 11:30, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > The documentation for -fpic and -fPIC explicitly mentions some targets > where the difference matters, but not AArch64. Specifying the GOT size > limit is not entirely correct as it can depend on the -mcmodel setting, > but probably better than leaving the impression that -fpic vs -fPIC does > not matter on AArch64. > > ChangeLog: > > 2015-11-12 Szabolcs Nagy > > * doc/invoke.texi (-fpic): Add the AArch64 limit. > (-fPIC): Add AArch64. > > fpic.diff > > > diff --git a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi > index 0121832..f925fe0 100644 > --- a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi > +++ b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi > @@ -23951,7 +23951,7 @@ loader is not part of GCC; it is part of the operating system). If > the GOT size for the linked executable exceeds a machine-specific > maximum size, you get an error message from the linker indicating that > @option{-fpic} does not work; in that case, recompile with @option{-fPIC} > -instead. (These maximums are 8k on the SPARC and 32k > +instead. (These maximums are 8k on the SPARC, 28k on AArch64 and 32k > on the m68k and RS/6000. The x86 has no such limit.) > > Position-independent code requires special support, and therefore works > @@ -23966,7 +23966,7 @@ are defined to 1. > @opindex fPIC > If supported for the target machine, emit position-independent code, > suitable for dynamic linking and avoiding any limit on the size of the > -global offset table. This option makes a difference on the m68k, > +global offset table. This option makes a difference on the AArch64, m68k, ^^^ The use of the definite article here makes this read somewhat awkwardly (particularly as AArch64 is first and is a term for a set of processor implementations). I think it would read better if it were dropped: "This option makes a difference on AArch64, m68k,..." > PowerPC and SPARC@. > > Position-independent code requires special support, and therefore works > OK with that change if nobody else objects within 24 hours. R.