This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] Add Prefer_MAP_32BIT_EXEC for Silvermont
- From: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
- To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, Zack Weinberg <zackw at panix dot com>, Andi Kleen <andi at firstfloor dot org>, Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval dot zanella at linaro dot org>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 18:34:18 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add Prefer_MAP_32BIT_EXEC for Silvermont
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAKCAbMhMArQ9wsXhw2y+Fvv+_3O5i4g8pdDQdWo6_1YxqfVxkQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOrVjSnhp-EzmAnVBg10wbqk9U4n+hL-3xF5=DPZP5co1A at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAKCAbMhk69hUBbrQ=0j0NDYjRT6R-EK1+F43+Mmi9FwS7epexQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAKCAbMhA6x4r6Bhw8cnAavoWzjWsm6WM8JPzrnCsrqxbEswS_g at mail dot gmail dot com> <87egeszoq3 dot fsf at tassilo dot jf dot intel dot com> <CAKCAbMibxh54DGJ6p59ah6jQK=oFkH9LCZo0UDBefQeh1y-5eg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOoyc4MXVz74GmjViora-iCEKitQXbpX9EB+Ln1Q_DAD_A at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAKCAbMi_noBivP+ksLaotNtfEhGrtUuUacbnZgjMg5m0PfEniw at mail dot gmail dot com> <20151211222913 dot GT15533 at two dot firstfloor dot org> <566B55DF dot 2040200 at redhat dot com> <20151212001449 dot GU15533 at two dot firstfloor dot org> <CAKCAbMgcZKr8-i2XuhHAnk4nKpJnpWEqj1XNuygkNhYzXPb8hA at mail dot gmail dot com> <566B8008 dot 6010106 at redhat dot com> <CAMe9rOofj5_TQFcU695CbMmpqcULUgD4r0O9kY2+VmsNoPJx9A at mail dot gmail dot com> <566EDCFF dot 7040301 at redhat dot com> <CAMe9rOoayJRfN=ag_o4bUekcsM1rOQ7rjqnrfUDPOE-DTaAmtA at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 12/14/2015 06:10 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 7:15 AM, Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 12/12/2015 06:36 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>>> Here is the updated patch to make it opt-in. OK for master?
>>
>> I would still like to see performance numbers for the PIE and vDSO
>> cases, as requested here:
>
> This optimization has no performance impact on PIE nor
> vDSO.
That's unfortunate. Why don't you need a more complete fix?
Florian