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] |
On Sep 16, 2005, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote: > On Sep 16, 2005, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote: >> Over the past few months, I've been working on porting to IA32 and >> AMD64/EM64T the interesting bits of the TLS design I came up with for >> FR-V, achieving some impressive speedups along with slight code size >> reductions in the most common cases. >> Although the design is not set in stone yet, it's fully implemented >> and functional with patches I'm about to post for binutils, gcc and >> glibc mainline, as follow-ups to this message, except that the GCC >> patch will go to gcc-patches, as expected. > Here's the patch for binutils. > I'm not entirely happy with two aspects of the patch: > - the way I managed to emit the `call *(%[er]ax)' instruction from > `call *variable@TLSCALL(%[er]ax)', dropping the offset from the > instruction but still emitting the relocation, seems fragile to me, > but there were not additional bits available to do something > cleaner. Any suggestions on a better approach? > - local_tlsdesc_gotent is probably too wasteful, since very few of all > local symbols are going to require TLS descriptor entries. I hope > this is not too much of a problem, but I could introduce another > data structure if people feel strongly about it. > Also note the several FIXMEs with decisions yet to be made on exact > instructions to be generated in several cases. I'm yet to develop > some means to better evaluate the performance of each alternative, but > even then, I have limited hardware to test on. I'd welcome feedback > from people more familiar with performance features of various > x86-compatible processors. Anyone? Thanks in advance, > Here's the patch. Built and tested on x86_64-linux-gnu and > i686-pc-linux-gnu. Ok to install? Updated patch, using different relocation numbers, and different dynamic table numbers as well. Same tests run and passed. Ok to install?
Attachment:
binutils-20050917.patch.bz2
Description: BZip2 compressed data
-- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |