From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19333 invoked by alias); 3 Jun 2011 12:52:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 19324 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Jun 2011 12:52:02 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RFC_ABUSE_POST X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-qw0-f47.google.com (HELO mail-qw0-f47.google.com) (209.85.216.47) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 03 Jun 2011 12:51:43 +0000 Received: by qwh5 with SMTP id 5so915561qwh.20 for ; Fri, 03 Jun 2011 05:51:43 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.20.210 with SMTP id g18mr1415776qcb.115.1307105502919; Fri, 03 Jun 2011 05:51:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.11.143 with HTTP; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 05:51:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 12:52:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: PING: PATCH: PR target/46770: Use .init_array/.fini_array sections From: "H.J. Lu" To: Richard Guenther Cc: GCC Patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2011-06/txt/msg00228.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:31 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:31 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 8:57 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 6:05 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 7:57 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:40 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 12:28 PM, H.J. Lu wrot= e: >>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 2:40 AM, Richard Guenther >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:12 AM, H.J. Lu w= rote: >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 05:20:48PM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote: >>>>>>>>>> This patch uses .init_array/.fini_array sections instead of >>>>>>>>>> .ctors/.dtors sections if mixing .init_array/.fini_array and >>>>>>>>>> .ctors/.dtors sections with init_priority works. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It removes .ctors/.ctors sections from executables and DSOes, wh= ich will >>>>>>>>>> remove one function call at startup time from each executable an= d DSO. >>>>>>>>>> It should reduce image size and improve system startup time. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If a platform with a working .init_array/.fini_array support nee= ds a >>>>>>>>>> different .init_array/.fini_array implementation, it can set >>>>>>>>>> use_initfini_array to no. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Since .init_array/.fini_array is a target feature. --enable-init= fini-array >>>>>>>>>> is default to no unless the native run-time test is passed. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> To pass the native run-time test, a linker with SORT_BY_INIT_PRI= ORITY >>>>>>>>>> support is required. =A0The binutils patch is available at >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2010-12/msg00466.html >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Linker patch has been checked in. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This patch passed 32bit/64bit regression test on Linux/x86-64. = =A0Any >>>>>>>>>> comments? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This updated patch fixes build on Linux/ia64 and should work on o= thers. >>>>>>>>> Any comments? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes. =A0This is stage1 material. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Here is the updated patch. =A0OK for trunk? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> H.J. >>>>>>> ---- >>>>>>> 2011-03-14 =A0H.J. Lu =A0 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0PR target/46770 >>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0* acinclude.m4 (gcc_AC_INITFINI_ARRAY): Removed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0* config.gcc (use_initfini_array): New variable. >>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Use initfini-array.o if supported. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0* crtstuff.c: Don't generate .ctors nor .dtors secti= ons if >>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0NO_CTORS_DTORS_SECTIONS is defined. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0* configure.ac: Remove gcc_AC_INITFINI_ARRAY. =A0Add >>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0--enable-initfini-array and check if .init_array can= be used with >>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0.ctors. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0* configure: Regenerated. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0* config/initfini-array.c: New. >>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0* config/initfini-array.h: Likewise. >>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0* config/t-initfini-array: Likewise. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0* config/arm/arm.c (arm_asm_init_sections): Call >>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0elf_initfini_array_init_sections if NO_CTORS_DTORS_S= ECTIONS >>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0is defined. >>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0* config/avr/avr.c (avr_asm_init_sections): Likewise. >>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0* config/ia64/ia64.c (ia64_asm_init_sections): Likew= ise. >>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0* config/mep/mep.c (mep_asm_init_sections): Likewise. >>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0* config/microblaze/microblaze.c (microblaze_elf_asm= _init_sections): >>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Likewise. >>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_elf_asm_init_sectio= ns): Likewise. >>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0* config/stormy16/stormy16.c (xstormy16_asm_init_sec= tions): >>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Likewise. >>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0* config/v850/v850.c (v850_asm_init_sections): Likew= ise. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> PING: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg00760.html >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Any comments? =A0Any objections? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Here is the patch updated for the current trunk. =A0OK for trunk? >>>> >>> >>> PING,. >> >> Hi Richard, >> >> You commented my patch was stage 1 material: >> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-01/msg01989.html >> >> Is my patch: >> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg00760.html >> >> OK for trunk? > > I can't approve the configury changes and would like to defer > to target maintainers for the target specific changes. =A0That said, > I'm not familiar enough with the area of the patch. =A0But yes, > it's stage1 now - so if anyone else wants to approve this patch... My first attempt: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg00589.html only affects x86. I changed it to generic based on the feedbacks. But other target maintainers show no interests. Should I make it x86 only first? Each target can enable it if needed. Thanks. --=20 H.J.