From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <libc-alpha-return-74554-listarch-libc-alpha=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 46713 invoked by alias); 8 Nov 2016 21:28:33 -0000
Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <libc-alpha.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:libc-alpha-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/>
List-Post: <mailto:libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 46663 invoked by uid 89); 8 Nov 2016 21:28:32 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=1.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=reliance, technique, minimal, Rewrite
X-HELO: topped-with-meat.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Roland McGrath <roland@hack.frob.com>
To: Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@arm.com>
Cc: Renlin Li <renlin.li@foss.arm.com>,
    <nd@arm.com>,
    <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>,
    Marcus Shawcroft <Marcus.Shawcroft@arm.com>,
    Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [GLIBC][AARCH64]Rewrite elf_machine_load_address using _DYNAMIC
 symbol
In-Reply-To: Szabolcs Nagy's message of  Monday, 7 November 2016 15:15:23 +0000 <58209A8B.5030702@arm.com>
References: <581C57FF.2090901@foss.arm.com>
	<20161104212440.A23F42C3AD8@topped-with-meat.com>
	<58209A8B.5030702@arm.com>
Message-Id: <20161108212829.5ABE92C3A0D@topped-with-meat.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2016 21:28:00 -0000
X-CMAE-Score: 0
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=XYkakuJ5 c=1 sm=1 tr=0
		a=WkljmVdYkabdwxfqvArNOQ==:117 a=L9H7d07YOLsA:10 a=9cW_t1CCXrUA:10
		a=s5jvgZ67dGcA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=FcspHXIezodkf-wYfd0A:9
		a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10
X-SW-Source: 2016-11/txt/msg00307.txt.bz2

There is plenty more reliance on the compiler not doing the wrong things.
I don't see any new issue there.

The use of a linker script here also does not concern me.  This only
affects building ld.so itself, so there is no issue about general linker
compatibility.  We have plenty more use of fancy linker features and only a
few linkers are capable of building libc already.

I never said I was sure this technique works on all machines.  
It certainly works on aarch64.

Show me the code you have in mind using _DYNAMIC.  The scheme using a
linker-defined symbol with value 0 is the only one I'm aware of that
reduces to the minimal number of assembly instructions, with none of them
being a load.