From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-396795-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 129830 invoked by alias); 4 May 2015 16:58:57 -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 129820 invoked by uid 89); 4 May 2015 16:58:57 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2
X-HELO: mx2.suse.de
Received: from cantor2.suse.de (HELO mx2.suse.de) (195.135.220.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (CAMELLIA256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 04 May 2015 16:58:56 +0000
Received: from relay2.suse.de (charybdis-ext.suse.de [195.135.220.254])	by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A4B5AAB1;	Mon,  4 May 2015 16:58:53 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 04 May 2015 16:58:00 -0000
From: Michael Matz <matz@suse.de>
To: Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com>
cc: Sriraman Tallam <tmsriram@google.com>,     GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>, "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH][X86_64] Eliminate PLT stubs for specified external functions via -fno-plt=
In-Reply-To: <CAAkRFZJtMA1==WiQ9j0hXUKemSW+Y1wbSFSZF8tiBkRhPnVJBw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.11.1505041856590.21748@wotan.suse.de>
References: <CAAs8HmxC4KQSc5EWiux7syOj8+ghs_LY8zY-D4-Wjp+ZhHiDuw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LSU.2.11.1505041613320.21748@wotan.suse.de> <CAAkRFZJtMA1==WiQ9j0hXUKemSW+Y1wbSFSZF8tiBkRhPnVJBw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (LSU 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2015-05/txt/msg00233.txt.bz2

Hi,

On Mon, 4 May 2015, Xinliang David Li wrote:

> The use case proposed by Sri allows user to selectively eliminate PLT
> overhead for hot external calls only.

Yes, but only _because_ his approach doesn't use lazy binding.  With the 
full solution such restriction to a subset of functions isn't necessary.
And we should strive for going the full way, instead of adding hacks, 
shouldn't we?


Ciao,
Michael.