This is the mail archive of the binutils@sourceware.org mailing list for the binutils project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
Hi Ian, On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Sriraman Tallam <tmsriram@google.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 05:19:01PM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Sriraman Tallam <tmsriram@google.com> wrote: >>>>> >> Ideally gold should group all input sections with the same name >>>> >>>> I strongly disagree. Grouping sections with the same name is a bad >>>> idea, unless the name gives you some infomation from the compiler (as >>>> it does with .text.hot* et al). The problem with grouping sections >>>> with the same name is that with -ffunction-sections objects, you'll >>>> potentially move functions away from their callers, losing cache >>>> locality. The canonical example is a number of object files with >>>> static "setup" functions. These will all have code in .text.setup, >>>> but there is no good reason to group these sections. >>> >>> That is a good point. >>> >>> Unfortunately it leaves us adding more special cases for section >>> names, which I really dislike. Is there any happy medium? >> >> gold now has multiple ways to reorder functions. There is the >> --section-ordering-file option, there is the plugin interface, and >> also the reordering via linker scripts. So, instead of adding another >> way to sort text sections, I was wondering instead if we could just >> use the --section-ordering-file mechanism. I can initialize the data >> structures to do this ordering by default. Is this a reasonable idea? > > Sure, if it works, and if using the --section-ordering-file option > doesn't discard the defaults unnecessarily. I have attached the new patch. This is slightly different from the old patch in that: * It does not create a new sort method. The existing method for section_ordering is modified. * It sorts text sections only when it finds atleast one section with the special prefix. Thanks, -Sri. > > Ian
Attachment:
text_section_grouping_patch.txt
Description: Text document
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |