On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:51 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: > 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 wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 2:40 AM, Richard Guenther >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:12 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>>>>>>>>> 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, which will >>>>>>>>>>> remove one function call at startup time from each executable and DSO. >>>>>>>>>>> It should reduce image size and improve system startup time. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If a platform with a working .init_array/.fini_array support needs 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-initfini-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_PRIORITY >>>>>>>>>>> support is required.  The 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.  Any >>>>>>>>>>> comments? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This updated patch fixes build on Linux/ia64 and should work on others. >>>>>>>>>> Any comments? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes.  This is stage1 material. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Here is the updated patch.  OK for trunk? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> H.J. >>>>>>>> ---- >>>>>>>> 2011-03-14  H.J. Lu   >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>        PR target/46770 >>>>>>>>        * acinclude.m4 (gcc_AC_INITFINI_ARRAY): Removed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>        * config.gcc (use_initfini_array): New variable. >>>>>>>>        Use initfini-array.o if supported. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>        * crtstuff.c: Don't generate .ctors nor .dtors sections if >>>>>>>>        NO_CTORS_DTORS_SECTIONS is defined. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>        * configure.ac: Remove gcc_AC_INITFINI_ARRAY.  Add >>>>>>>>        --enable-initfini-array and check if .init_array can be used with >>>>>>>>        .ctors. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>        * configure: Regenerated. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>        * config/initfini-array.c: New. >>>>>>>>        * config/initfini-array.h: Likewise. >>>>>>>>        * config/t-initfini-array: Likewise. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>        * config/arm/arm.c (arm_asm_init_sections): Call >>>>>>>>        elf_initfini_array_init_sections if NO_CTORS_DTORS_SECTIONS >>>>>>>>        is defined. >>>>>>>>        * config/avr/avr.c (avr_asm_init_sections): Likewise. >>>>>>>>        * config/ia64/ia64.c (ia64_asm_init_sections): Likewise. >>>>>>>>        * config/mep/mep.c (mep_asm_init_sections): Likewise. >>>>>>>>        * config/microblaze/microblaze.c (microblaze_elf_asm_init_sections): >>>>>>>>        Likewise. >>>>>>>>        * config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_elf_asm_init_sections): Likewise. >>>>>>>>        * config/stormy16/stormy16.c (xstormy16_asm_init_sections): >>>>>>>>        Likewise. >>>>>>>>        * config/v850/v850.c (v850_asm_init_sections): Likewise. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> PING: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg00760.html >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Any comments?  Any objections? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Here is the patch updated for the current trunk.  OK 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.  That said, >> I'm not familiar enough with the area of the patch.  But 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. > I am enclosing 2 patches here. One only affects Linux/x86 and the other covers all targets. I tested both versions on Linux/x86 without any regressions. Since I only got OK from one target maintainer and I have been pinging on this patch for more than 6 months, I'd like to get it enabled for Linux/x86 soon. Uros, can I check in Linux/x86 version if there are no full feedbacks from the rest of target maintainers for more than 48hours. We can enable other targets on a target by target basis later. Thanks. -- H.J.