From: Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana.gcc@googlemail.com>
To: Sriraman Tallam <tmsriram@google.com>
Cc: Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana.radhakrishnan@arm.com>,
Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz>, "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>,
Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>, Michael Matz <matz@suse.de>,
David Li <davidxl@google.com>,
GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH][X86_64] Eliminate PLT stubs for specified external functions via -fno-plt=
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 18:41:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJA7tRbHAHi7i1xboTZadrJLE_Ry628pwLot6f3wdK4KzawqCQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAs8Hmy3jZDkE1hNmojx9rBBAZ9tjCYHXHevojMTAYHZ5kp8hA@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Sriraman Tallam <tmsriram@google.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 1:24 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
> <ramana.radhakrishnan@arm.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Why isn't it just an indirect call in the cases that would require a GOT
>>>> slot and a direct call otherwise ? I'm trying to work out what's so
>>>> different on each target that mandates this to be in the target backend.
>>>> Also it would be better to push the tests into gcc.dg if you can and
>>>> check
>>>> for the absence of a relocation so that folks at least see these as being
>>>> UNSUPPORTED on their target.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> To be even more explicit, shouldn't this be handled similar to the way in
>> which -fno-plt is handled in a target agnostic manner ? After all, if you
>> can handle this for the command line, doing the same for a function which
>> has been decorated with attribute((noplt)) should be simple.
>
> -fno-plt does not work for non-PIC code, having non-PIC code not use
> PLT was my primary motivation. Infact, if you go back in this thread,
> I suggested to HJ if I should piggyback on -fno-plt. I tried using
> the -fno-plt implementation to do this by removing the flag_pic check
> in calls.c, but that does not still work for non-PIC code.
You're missing my point, unless I'm missing something basic here - I
should have been even more explicit and said -fPIC was a given in all
this discussion.
calls.c:229 has
else if (flag_pic && !flag_plt && fndecl_or_type
&& TREE_CODE (fndecl_or_type) == FUNCTION_DECL
&& !targetm.binds_local_p (fndecl_or_type))
why can't we merge the check in here for the attribute noplt ?
If a new attribute is added to the "GNU language" in this case, why
isn't this being treated in the same way as the command line option
has been treated ? All this means is that we add an attribute and a
command line option to common code and then not implement it in a
proper target agnostic fashion.
regards
Ramana
>
>>
>>> I am not familiar with PLT calls for other targets. I can move the
>>> tests to gcc.dg but what relocation are you suggesting I check for?
>>
>>
>> Move the test to gcc.dg, add a target_support_no_plt function in
>> testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp and mark this as being supported only on
>> x86 and use scan-assembler to scan for PLT relocations for x86. Other
>> targets can add things as they deem fit.
>
>>
>> In any case, on a large number of elf/ linux targets I would have thought
>> the absence of a JMP_SLOT relocation would be good enough to check that this
>> is working correctly.
>>
>> regards
>> Ramana
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Sri
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ramana
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also I think the PLT calls have EBX in call fusage wich is added by
>>>>>> ix86_expand_call.
>>>>>> else
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> /* Static functions and indirect calls don't need the pic
>>>>>> register. */
>>>>>> if (flag_pic
>>>>>> && (!TARGET_64BIT
>>>>>> || (ix86_cmodel == CM_LARGE_PIC
>>>>>> && DEFAULT_ABI != MS_ABI))
>>>>>> && GET_CODE (XEXP (fnaddr, 0)) == SYMBOL_REF
>>>>>> && ! SYMBOL_REF_LOCAL_P (XEXP (fnaddr, 0)))
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> use_reg (&use, gen_rtx_REG (Pmode,
>>>>>> REAL_PIC_OFFSET_TABLE_REGNUM));
>>>>>> if (ix86_use_pseudo_pic_reg ())
>>>>>> emit_move_insn (gen_rtx_REG (Pmode,
>>>>>> REAL_PIC_OFFSET_TABLE_REGNUM),
>>>>>> pic_offset_table_rtx);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think you want to take that away from FUSAGE there just like we do
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> local calls
>>>>>> (and in fact the code should already check flag_pic && flag_plt I
>>>>>> suppose.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Done that now and patch attached.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Sri
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Honza
>>>
>>>
>>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-06-01 18:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 65+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-10 15:19 H.J. Lu
[not found] ` <CAAs8HmwWSDY+KjKcB4W=TiYV0Pz7NSvfL_8igp+hPT-LU1utTg@mail.gmail.com>
2015-05-21 21:31 ` Sriraman Tallam
2015-05-21 21:39 ` Sriraman Tallam
2015-05-21 22:02 ` Pedro Alves
2015-05-21 22:02 ` Jakub Jelinek
2015-05-22 1:47 ` H.J. Lu
2015-05-22 3:38 ` Xinliang David Li
2015-05-21 22:34 ` Sriraman Tallam
2015-05-22 9:22 ` Pedro Alves
2015-05-22 15:13 ` Sriraman Tallam
2015-05-28 18:53 ` Sriraman Tallam
2015-05-28 19:05 ` H.J. Lu
2015-05-28 19:48 ` Sriraman Tallam
2015-05-28 20:19 ` H.J. Lu
2015-05-28 21:27 ` Sriraman Tallam
2015-05-28 21:31 ` H.J. Lu
2015-05-28 21:52 ` Sriraman Tallam
2015-05-28 22:48 ` H.J. Lu
2015-05-29 3:51 ` Sriraman Tallam
2015-05-29 5:13 ` H.J. Lu
2015-05-29 7:13 ` Sriraman Tallam
2015-05-29 17:36 ` Sriraman Tallam
2015-05-29 17:52 ` H.J. Lu
2015-05-29 18:33 ` Sriraman Tallam
2015-05-29 20:50 ` Jan Hubicka
2015-05-29 22:56 ` Sriraman Tallam
2015-05-29 23:08 ` Sriraman Tallam
[not found] ` <CAJA7tRYsMiq7rx34c=z6KwRdwYxxaeP6Z6qzA4XEwnJSMT7z=Q@mail.gmail.com>
2015-05-30 4:44 ` Sriraman Tallam
2015-06-01 8:24 ` Ramana Radhakrishnan
2015-06-01 18:01 ` Sriraman Tallam
2015-06-01 18:41 ` Ramana Radhakrishnan [this message]
2015-06-01 18:55 ` Sriraman Tallam
2015-06-01 20:33 ` Ramana Radhakrishnan
2015-06-02 18:27 ` Sriraman Tallam
2015-06-02 19:59 ` Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
2015-06-02 20:09 ` Sriraman Tallam
2015-06-02 21:18 ` Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
2015-06-02 21:09 ` Ramana Radhakrishnan
2015-06-02 21:25 ` Xinliang David Li
2015-06-02 21:52 ` Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
2015-06-02 21:40 ` Sriraman Tallam
2015-06-03 14:37 ` Ramana Radhakrishnan
2015-06-03 18:53 ` Sriraman Tallam
2015-06-03 20:16 ` Richard Henderson
2015-06-03 20:59 ` Sriraman Tallam
2015-06-04 16:56 ` Sriraman Tallam
2015-06-04 17:30 ` Richard Henderson
2015-06-04 21:34 ` Sriraman Tallam
2015-07-24 19:02 ` H.J. Lu
2015-06-03 19:57 ` Richard Henderson
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-05-01 0:31 Sriraman Tallam
2015-05-01 3:21 ` Alan Modra
2015-05-01 3:26 ` Sriraman Tallam
2015-05-01 15:01 ` Andi Kleen
2015-05-01 16:19 ` Xinliang David Li
2015-05-01 16:23 ` H.J. Lu
2015-05-01 16:26 ` Xinliang David Li
2015-05-01 18:06 ` Sriraman Tallam
2015-05-02 12:12 ` Andi Kleen
2015-05-01 17:50 ` Sriraman Tallam
2015-05-04 14:45 ` Michael Matz
2015-05-04 16:43 ` Xinliang David Li
2015-05-04 16:58 ` Michael Matz
2015-05-04 17:22 ` Xinliang David Li
2015-05-09 16:35 ` H.J. Lu
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=CAJA7tRbHAHi7i1xboTZadrJLE_Ry628pwLot6f3wdK4KzawqCQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=ramana.gcc@googlemail.com \
--cc=davidxl@google.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=hjl.tools@gmail.com \
--cc=hubicka@ucw.cz \
--cc=matz@suse.de \
--cc=palves@redhat.com \
--cc=ramana.radhakrishnan@arm.com \
--cc=ramrad01@arm.com \
--cc=tmsriram@google.com \
/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: link
Be 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).