On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 07:08:06PM +0000, Pedro Alves via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On 10/6/20 12:10 PM, Jozef Lawrynowicz wrote:
>
> > Should "used" apply SHF_GNU_RETAIN?
> > ===================================
> > Another talking point is whether the existing "used" attribute should
> > apply the SHF_GNU_RETAIN flag to the containing section.
> >
> > It seems unlikely that a user applies the "used" attribute to a
> > declaration, and means for it to be saved from only compiler
> > optimization, but *not* linker optimization. So perhaps it would be
> > beneficial for "used" to apply SHF_GNU_RETAIN in some way.
> >
> > If "used" did apply SHF_GNU_RETAIN, we would also have to
> > consider the above options for how to apply SHF_GNU_RETAIN to the
> > section. Since the "used" attribute has been around for a while
> > it might not be appropriate for its behavior to be changed to place the
> > associated declaration in its own, unique section, as in option (2).
> >
>
> To me, if I use attribute((used)), and the linker still garbage
> collects the symbol, then the toolchain has a bug. Is there any
> use case that would suggest otherwise?
>
> Thanks,
> Pedro Alves
>
I agree that "used" should imply SHF_GNU_RETAIN on whatever section
contains the declaration that the attribute is applied to. However, I
think that apart from the section flag being applied to the section, the
behaviour of "used" shouldn't be modified i.e. the declaration shouldn't
be put in a unique section.
I originally justified the addition of a "retain" attribute, alongside
"used" implying SHF_GNU_RETAIN, as indicating that the declaration
should be placed in it's own section. In hindsight, this is unnecessary;
if the user wants to increase the granularity of the portions of their
program being retained, they should build with
-f{function,data}-sections, or manually put the declaration in its own
section with the "section" attribute.
So we could shelve the "retain" attribute, and just modify the "used"
attribute to imply SHF_GNU_RETAIN. If we get consensus on that, I could
go ahead an implement it, but I never got any specific feedback on the
GCC behavior from anyone apart from you. I don't know whether to
interpret that lack of feedback, whilst the other aspects of the
implementation were commented on, as support for the "retain" attribute.
(I appreciate you giving that feedback in the Binutils discussions, and
should have engaged in those discussions more at the time. There was
just a lot of opinions flying about on many aspects of it, which is
attention for this proposal I now miss...)
Since I'm not proposing to modify the behavior of "used" apart from
applying SHF_GNU_RETAIN to its section, I'm hoping the GCC side of
things won't be too controversial.
However, the assembler will have to support mis-matched section
declarations, i.e.:
.section .text,"ax",%progbits
.......
.section .text,"axR",%progbits
.......
The Binutils patch that supported this would create two separate .text
sections in the assembled object file, one with SHF_GNU_RETAIN and one
without.
Perhaps they should be merged into a single .text section, with
SHF_GNU_RETAIN applied to that merged section, so as to truly not
interfere with "used" attribute behavior.
There was an opinion that allowing these separate .section directives
with the same name but different flags was undesirable.
Personally, I don't see it as a problem, this exception is beneficial
and makes sense, if the assembler merges the sections it is as if they
all had the flag applied anyway.
On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 07:12:45PM +0000, Pedro Alves via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On 10/6/20 12:10 PM, Jozef Lawrynowicz wrote:
> > The changes would also only affect targets
> > that support the GNU ELF OSABI, which would lead to inconsistent
> > behavior between non-GNU OS's.
>
> Well, a separate __attribute__((retain)) will necessarily only work
> on GNU ELF targets, so that just shifts the "inconsistent" behavior
> elsewhere.
True, a note in the documentation would cover this. For example:
"As a GNU ELF extension, the used attribute will also prevent the
linker from garbage collecting the section containing the symbol"
Thanks,
Jozef
