This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] Two level comdat priorities in gold
- From: Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google dot com>
- To: Cary Coutant <ccoutant at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Sriraman Tallam <tmsriram at google dot com>, Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>, binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>, Paul Pluzhnikov <ppluzhnikov at google dot com>, Daniel Berlin <dannyb at google dot com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 12:35:17 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Two level comdat priorities in gold
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAAs8HmwHCWKf+Onx=ERLgLpk6276f+jhuW-WiKpvhz6QDxWQ2Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAKOQZ8wrnsj5UZx-trKXD+RBXS64TijHQPsJ1zwYeooZ5Kufsg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAAkRFZLOacc874KkFD4iYuPk17qEMPLB5Sy4V57+UiCg0F48fA at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAKOQZ8ximo=B65dk2t6Ojwp_KEzWWr5zX6xpkR6_bVNMquJMcg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAAkRFZ+OacKbu1iGGGXVEJu2OucOzObF8aMiLV0646e0JONdWw at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAAs8Hmyy2A8Ly-bXxVXu16pWcHkA71tmat747CGeF3aTGcJ9SQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAJimCsFkbsrOSRagS7aHEzxoLH_-8AF49yWS8S_Y11rV9YdsKQ at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Cary Coutant <email@example.com> wrote:
> I'd prefer to avoid something like two-level comdats, which forces the
> linker into the two-pass approach used for --gc-sections and --icf.
> However, if you do need something like that, I think using a group
> flag in the GRP_MASKOS bit range to identify "weak" comdat groups
> would be preferable to the .gnu.comdat.low section, and would address
> the issue with ld -r. It also ought to be possible to implement such a
> concept without going to two passes; perhaps by maintaining a list of
> weak comdat groups.
>>>> While it is possible to construct test cases for this problem using C
>>>> inline functions, in practice the problem is going to arise in C++.
>>>> In C++ it's similar to the problem solved by using ABI tags. This
>>>> suggests to me that we should have a compiler option allowing an ABI
>>>> tag to be specified for all weak definitions. As far as I can see
>>>> that would address the entire problem, with no confusion about -r, and
>>>> permitting optimized functions to call optimized versions of the vague
>>>> linkage definitions.
> This still might have a problem with virtual functions, if the
> compiler needs to emit a vtable. In that case, the vtable will point
> to the "accidentally optimized" -mxxx function, and if that's the copy
> of the vtable we end up with, everyone is going to call it. You could
> consider extending the ABI tag to the vtable itself, essentially
> creating a new class, but that would still be a problem if we
> construct an instance of the class in the optimized code and return
> that instance to non-optimized code.
> It seems to me that the only safe way to do this is to make sure that
> generated templates and out-of-line inlines are generated with
> optimization suitable for the entire program.
This seems a good alternative except that there is a slight chance of
> The downside of not
> calling avx-optimized template functions from avx-optimized code
> doesn't seem that bad -- if a call is performance sensitive enough, it
> should be inlined, in which case the optimizations could apply.
> If you could simply disallow virtual functions, either the
> localization approach or the ABI tag approach should work -- they have
> essentially the same effect, except that with ABI tags you could avoid
> the code bloat.
> You could also just add a compiler option to suppress generated
> template functions and out-of-line inlines completely, then cross your
> fingers and hope that the needed functions will be available in some
> other object. If you're in control of the libraries that contain these
> avx-optimized functions, that may not be as dangerous as it sounds --
> just add a normally-optimized .o that instantiates all the routines
> needed by the avx-optimized objects.
> You mentioned pointer equality, but if that's really an issue, the
> only way I can see to solve that is to make sure you don't apply the
> -mxxx options to the template functions.