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]

Re: [GOLD] advice on powerpc64 .opd handling


On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 06:59:57AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:08:13PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> >> Normally a C array should be std::vector in C++.  This should probably be
> >>
> >>   std::vector<unsigned int> ent_shndx_;
> >>   std::vector<typename elfcpp::Elf_Types<size>::Elf_Off> opd_ent_off_;
> >
> > Even when no resizing will be needed?
> 
> Yes.  The overhead is small.

OK.

> >> Will this work correctly if the symbol is defined in a SHT_GROUP
> >> section that is discarded?
> >
> > Hasn't something gone horribly if we're trying to call such a
> > function?
> 
> Seems to me that it's normal for a C++ template instantiation.  Maybe
> I'm missing something.

I meant function as in a symbol in the object file, not a language
feature.  In other words, if gold is relocating a function call then
(a) the section we're relocating is a kept section, and
(b) the function symbol referenced in the reloc will have its code
section kept too, unless something has gone wrong with --gc-sections.
As far as I'm aware, the only way (b) might fail is if the function
symbol is STB_LOCAL, but I thought gcc no longer used local symbols in
comdat groups or linkonce sections.  Or is there something I'm missing
about gold symbol resolution?

-- 
Alan Modra
Australia Development Lab, IBM


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]