On 06/03/2015 11:38 AM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
> + { "no_plt", 0, 0, true, false, false,
> + handle_no_plt_attribute, false },
Call it noplt. We don't add the underscore for noinline, noclone, etc.
> Index: config/i386/i386.c
> ===================================================================
> --- config/i386/i386.c (revision 223720)
> +++ config/i386/i386.c (working copy)
> @@ -5479,7 +5479,10 @@ ix86_function_ok_for_sibcall (tree decl, tree exp)
> && !TARGET_64BIT
> && flag_pic
> && flag_plt
> - && decl && !targetm.binds_local_p (decl))
> + && decl
> + && (TREE_CODE (decl) != FUNCTION_DECL
> + || !lookup_attribute ("no_plt", DECL_ATTRIBUTES (decl)))
> + && !targetm.binds_local_p (decl))
> return false;
>
> /* If we need to align the outgoing stack, then sibcalling would
Is this really necessary? I'd expect DECL to be NULL in this case,
since the non-use of the PLT will mean that the (sib)call is indirect.
> @@ -25497,13 +25500,19 @@ ix86_expand_call (rtx retval, rtx fnaddr, rtx call
> }
> else
> {
> - /* Static functions and indirect calls don't need the pic register. */
> + /* Static functions and indirect calls don't need the pic register.
> Also,
> + check if PLT was explicitly avoided via no-plt or "no_plt" attribute,
> making
> + it an indirect call. */
> if (flag_pic
> && (!TARGET_64BIT
> || (ix86_cmodel == CM_LARGE_PIC
> && DEFAULT_ABI != MS_ABI))
> && GET_CODE (XEXP (fnaddr, 0)) == SYMBOL_REF
> - && ! SYMBOL_REF_LOCAL_P (XEXP (fnaddr, 0)))
> + && !SYMBOL_REF_LOCAL_P (XEXP (fnaddr, 0))
> + && flag_plt
> + && (TREE_CODE (SYMBOL_REF_DECL (XEXP(fnaddr, 0))) != FUNCTION_DECL
> + || !lookup_attribute ("no_plt",
> + DECL_ATTRIBUTES (SYMBOL_REF_DECL (XEXP(fnaddr, 0))))))
> {
> use_reg (&use, gen_rtx_REG (Pmode, REAL_PIC_OFFSET_TABLE_REGNUM));
> if (ix86_use_pseudo_pic_reg ())
Why are you testing FUNCTION_DECL? Even if, somehow, the user were producing a
function call to a data symbol, why do you think that lookup_attribute would
produce incorrect results?
Similarly in ix86_nopic_no_plt_attribute_p.
r~
