From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-391408-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 13810 invoked by alias); 6 Feb 2015 16:25:35 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 13789 invoked by uid 89); 6 Feb 2015 16:25:34 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,KAM_STOCKGEN,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2
X-HELO: mail-oi0-f49.google.com
Received: from mail-oi0-f49.google.com (HELO mail-oi0-f49.google.com) (209.85.218.49) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 16:25:33 +0000
Received: by mail-oi0-f49.google.com with SMTP id x69so4348476oia.8        for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 08:25:31 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.246.69 with SMTP id xu5mr3019038obc.11.1423239931014; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 08:25:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.76.134.102 with HTTP; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 08:25:30 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAAs8HmyO5hFsKTYoOxgBv9B4-Qo0rh+7VrBjuT03Qc0BCOhmPQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20150203193615.GZ1746@tucnak.redhat.com>	<20150203221935.GA1746@tucnak.redhat.com>	<CAMe9rOq-A3YebgJ_xRnQDekYuvRw6C9GD9DYbhUizvr3OPad_Q@mail.gmail.com>	<CAAs8Hmxdx1n+hgJ0oTAufPauz=S67oM2F_NAmyTzzUSh-ic=4Q@mail.gmail.com>	<20150204183127.GU1746@tucnak.redhat.com>	<CAMe9rOpWUnex45v3hM9=tDNfnC6ipJ-hMEkiY1714Km15bL=bg@mail.gmail.com>	<20150204184205.GW1746@tucnak.redhat.com>	<CAMe9rOoWkw==PQZt1hR1xjKaVxwkFh39vNbFb1WFbaxgxofJMA@mail.gmail.com>	<CAAs8HmzByYULg8y0F2DnVo0YBnh__Jx2xSrvAoMYuWPJJb2q6A@mail.gmail.com>	<CAMe9rOpFiaRuauCqFwUxYPEo46jPiQf8=W9+7Cf8q=1QCm0sEA@mail.gmail.com>	<CAAs8HmwHY-vNEBdULByHYU__xKcKOarMqr-+69VRxo_kBkzwxw@mail.gmail.com>	<CAMe9rOoGdDBpn12LFyTqdbfhdOxXgw4i9Xmk34fj=K+KzhSoAw@mail.gmail.com>	<50365BC5-5D7C-423A-803B-F8F6F040C865@gmail.com>	<CAMe9rOpAnkfsJMXMM=MGNfqsCsLeBdNwmyCqLk6FbbrULbKigQ@mail.gmail.com>	<54D3BC5B.3080300@redhat.com>	<CAMe9rOqxn1r6vDMqMhNWATNtrbmX6JviPSJx0hJ=bAu2tPqkkA@mail.gmail.com>	<54D3CB8E.3050004@redhat.com>	<CAAs8HmyO5hFsKTYoOxgBv9B4-Qo0rh+7VrBjuT03Qc0BCOhmPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2015 16:25:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAMe9rOq6F3ft-NfwJnScA9p3XT9FTD_1PKDe58oyzTLovZyY8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH x86_64] Optimize access to globals in "-fpie -pie" builds with copy relocations
From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
To: Sriraman Tallam <tmsriram@google.com>
Cc: Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot.nop@gmail.com>, 	Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>, 	"gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>, David Li <davidxl@google.com>, 	Cary Coutant <ccoutant@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2015-02/txt/msg00411.txt.bz2

On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Sriraman Tallam <tmsriram@google.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 02/05/2015 11:01 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> Can you elaborate why it depends on COPY relocation?  There
>>> is no COPY relocation on x86-64.
>>
>> Ho hum, we appear to have switched topics mid-thread.
>>
>> I agree that we cannot override a weak symbol in the executable with even a
>> non-weak symbol in a shared library.
>
> Hi HJ,
>
>    Is your patch supposed to fix weak symbols too?  Will
> SYMBOL_REF_LOCAL_P evaluate to true for weak defined symbols with this
> patch?  I tested this in gcc-4_9 and it didnt seem to do that.

A patch is posted at

https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-02/msg00410.html

-- 
H.J.