Ping...

I attached the patch again for your reference.
Is it OK for trunk?

Thanks
Bernd.

On 06/01/17 17:59, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> Ping...
> 
> On 05/12/17 18:48, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>> Ping...
>>
>> On 04/29/17 09:06, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>> On 04/28/17 20:46, Jeff Law wrote:
>>>> On 04/28/2017 11:27 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes I agree, that is probably not worth it.  So I could try to remove
>>>>> the special handling of PIC+const and see what happens.
>>>>>
>>>>> However the SYMBOL_REF_FUNCTION_P is another story, that part I would
>>>>> like to keep: It happens quite often, already w/o -fpic that call
>>>>> statements are using SYMBOL_REFs to ordinary (not weak) function
>>>>> symbols, and may_trap returns 1 for these call statements wihch is 
>>>>> IMHO
>>>>> wrong.
>>>> Hmm, thinking more about this, wasn't the original case a PIC 
>>>> referrence
>>>> for something like &x[BIGNUM].
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps we could consider a PIC reference without other arithmetic as
>>>> safe.  That would likely pick up the SYMBOL_REF_FUNCTION_P case you 
>>>> want
>>>> as well good deal many more PIC references as non-trapping.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, I like this idea.
>>>
>>> I tried to compile openssl with -m32 -fpic as an example, and counted
>>> how often the mem[pic+const] is hit: that was 2353 times, all kind of
>>> object refs.
>>>
>>> Then I tried your idea, and only 54 unhandled pic refs remained, all of
>>> them looking like this:
>>>
>>> (plus:SI (reg:SI 107)
>>>     (const:SI (plus:SI (unspec:SI [
>>>                     (symbol_ref:SI ("bf_init") [flags 0x2] <var_decl
>>> 0x2ac00f7bac60 bf_init>)
>>>                 ] UNSPEC_GOTOFF)
>>>             (const_int 4164 [0x1044]))))
>>>
>>> I believe that is a negligible fall out from such a big code base.
>>>
>>> Although the pic references do no longer reach the
>>> SYMBOL_REF_FUNCTION_P in this version of the patch, I still see
>>> that happening without -fpic option, so I left it as is.
>>>
>>>
>>> Attached is the new version of my patch.
>>>
>>> Bootstrapped and reg-tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
>>> Is it OK for trunk?
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Bernd.