From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8180 invoked by alias); 12 Dec 2002 06:33:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 8173 invoked from network); 12 Dec 2002 06:33:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dair.pair.com) (209.68.1.49) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 12 Dec 2002 06:33:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 49002 invoked by uid 20157); 12 Dec 2002 06:33:50 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 12 Dec 2002 06:33:50 -0000 Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 23:35:00 -0000 From: Hans-Peter Nilsson X-X-Sender: hp@dair.pair.com To: Richard Henderson cc: Peter Barada , , , Subject: Re: Bogus position independent code(PIC) emitted for ColdFire v4e In-Reply-To: <20021206190701.GB15574@redhat.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00625.txt.bz2 On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, Richard Henderson wrote: > On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 12:46:19PM -0500, Peter Barada wrote: > > Should I use ENCODE_SECTION_INFO for m68k/ColdFire, or bite the bullet > > and go the UNSPEC route? > > I think you're better off going the UNSPEC route. Any particular reason? I chose the ENCODE_SECTION_INFO route for CRIS, because in a perfect GCC, going that route would supposedly enable GCC to optimize symbol references (for example, combining foo and foo+N). (Context: the UNSPEC route forbids GCC from looking through the UNSPEC.) Right, I *also* use (CONST) UNSPEC, for references that should go through PLT, expanded at call and call_value. No harm done since function references are supposedly not combinable. brgds, H-P