RFH/RFC: symbol index overflow in MIPS linker stubs...
Thiemo Seufer
ths@networkno.de
Thu Jun 8 18:50:00 GMT 2006
More information about the Binutils mailing list
Thu Jun 8 18:50:00 GMT 2006
- Previous message (by thread): RFH/RFC: symbol index overflow in MIPS linker stubs...
- Next message (by thread): RFH/RFC: symbol index overflow in MIPS linker stubs...
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Richard Sandiford wrote: > David Daney <ddaney@avtrex.com> writes: > > I think we could easily change the stubs so that they used ori (an > > unsigned immediate load), instead of li. This would work for symbol > > tables of size up to 2^16. > > > > FWIW: I tested this theory by hand editing the stubs to use the unsigned > > immediate load and the library now runs correctly. > > > > A second option might be to use a two instruction sequence to load t8, > > but that would change the size of the stubs. I don't know if that would > > be portable or possible. > > I'm with Daniel (if I've understood him correctly): I think it _is_ > worth going the extra mile and only using the longer stubs if the > largest dynindx requires it. Thinking again about it, currently the stub fits in a cacheline, so there might be a bigger performance impact than I estimated before. IOW, I agree. [snip] > I'm a little worried that using longer stubs might confuse the native > IRIX tools, but I no longer have access to IRIX, so I can't check. > I don't think that's a problem for the cases that really need it -- > what else can we do? -- but I think it is one reason to prefer the > traditional stubs when possible. Probably some IRIX user is interested in testing the patch. Thiemo
- Previous message (by thread): RFH/RFC: symbol index overflow in MIPS linker stubs...
- Next message (by thread): RFH/RFC: symbol index overflow in MIPS linker stubs...
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Binutils mailing list