Re: [PATCH x86_64] Optimize access to globals in "-fpie -pie" builds with copy relocations

["H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Sriraman Tallam <tmsriram@google.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 06/20/2014 05:17 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>>> Index: config/i386/i386.c
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- config/i386/i386.c        (revision 211826)
>>> +++ config/i386/i386.c        (working copy)
>>> @@ -12691,7 +12691,9 @@ legitimate_pic_address_disp_p (rtx disp)
>>>               return true;
>>>           }
>>>         else if (!SYMBOL_REF_FAR_ADDR_P (op0)
>>> -                && SYMBOL_REF_LOCAL_P (op0)
>>> +                && (SYMBOL_REF_LOCAL_P (op0)
>>> +                    || (TARGET_64BIT && ix86_copyrelocs && flag_pie
>>> +                        && !SYMBOL_REF_FUNCTION_P (op0)))
>>>                  && ix86_cmodel != CM_LARGE_PIC)
>>>           return true;
>>>         break;
>>
>> This is the wrong place to patch.
>>
>> You ought to be adjusting SYMBOL_REF_LOCAL_P, by providing a modified
>> TARGET_BINDS_LOCAL_P.
>
> I have done this in the new attached patch, I added a new function
> i386_binds_local_p which will check for this and call
> default_binds_local_p otherwise.
>
>>
>> Note in particular that I believe that you are doing the wrong thing with weak
>> and COMMON symbols, in that you probably ought not force a copy reloc there.
>
> I added an extra check to not do this for WEAK symbols. I also added a
> check for DECL_EXTERNAL so I believe this will also not be called for
> COMMON symbols.
>
>>
>> Note the complexity of default_binds_local_p_1, and the fact that all you
>> really want to modify is
>>
>>   /* If PIC, then assume that any global name can be overridden by
>>      symbols resolved from other modules.  */
>>   else if (shlib)
>>     local_p = false;
>>
>> near the bottom of that function.
>
> I did not understand what you mean here? Were you suggesting an
> alternative way of doing this?
>
> Thanks for reviewing

I'd like to see a few testcases:

1. One test to show it does the right thing for external variable.
2. One test to show it does the right thing for common symbol.
3. One test to show it does the right thing for weak symbol.
4. One test to show it does the right thing for external function.

Thanks.

-- 
H.J.