> So far, I've been prototyping static PIE support by having GCC pass
> the following options to ld instead of -static -pie:
>
> -static -shared -Bsymbolic
>
> This partly works, but since ld does not know it's producing a main
> executable, it misses important details, including the abilit
Thank you for the review and comments.
On 8/17/2015 3:41 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 06:33:40PM -0700, David Wohlferd wrote:
On systems where an underscore is normally prepended to the name of a C
-function or variable, this feature allows you to define names for the
There isn't any description of using asm like this in the current Asm
Labels docs.
And there shouldn't be. It's a hack.
Ok, good. After experimenting with this, I wasn't looking forward to
trying to describe what did and didn't work.
dw
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 10:42:56PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 02:19:34PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
> > > For background on the static PIE model I'm working with, see the
> > > following post to the GCC list:
> > >
> > > h
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 02:19:34PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
> > For background on the static PIE model I'm working with, see the
> > following post to the GCC list:
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2015-06/msg8.html
> >
> > So far, I've been
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 10:38:22AM -0700, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-08-11 at 10:05 +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
>
> > > The 'and' instruction is where the stack gets aligned and if I remove that
> > > one instruction, everything works. I think I need to put out some new CFI
> > > psuedo-ops
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 02:19:34PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
>> > For background on the static PIE model I'm working with, see the
>> > following post to the GCC list:
>> >
>> > https://gcc.gn
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 02:19:34PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
> > For background on the static PIE model I'm working with, see the
> > following post to the GCC list:
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2015-06/msg8.html
> >
> > So far, I've been
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
> For background on the static PIE model I'm working with, see the
> following post to the GCC list:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2015-06/msg8.html
>
> So far, I've been prototyping static PIE support by having GCC pass
> the following opti
On Tue, 2015-08-11 at 10:05 +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> > The 'and' instruction is where the stack gets aligned and if I remove that
> > one instruction, everything works. I think I need to put out some new CFI
> > psuedo-ops to handle this but I am not sure what they should be. I am just
> > not
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015, FX wrote:
> > It's necessary to avoid the type-generic signbit expanding to call a library
> > function that may not exist, but as all currently supported floating-point
> > formats do have a sign bit specified in signbit_ro I believe the case
> > of failing to expand inline c
[Richard wrote:]
Ah, so for a meaningful comparison -march=native should be used.
Otherwise we don't get much store if-conversion anyway.
Understood. I`ll adjust configuration files accordingly and redo the analyses.
Please look for an updated report from me later this week.
Regards,
Abe
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Abe Skolnik wrote:
> [Alan wrote:]
>
>> Interesting, thanks. For what kind of architecture are these -
>
> You are welcome.
>
> You raised 2 or 3 good points, I think.
>
> First: the numbers are all from builds on and for the AMD64 ISA, AKA
> "x86_64". My apolog
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 06:33:40PM -0700, David Wohlferd wrote:
> On systems where an underscore is normally prepended to the name of a C
> -function or variable, this feature allows you to define names for the
> +variable, this feature allows you to define names for the
> linker that do not star
-Original Message-
From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 9:59 PM
To: Ajit Kumar Agarwal
Cc: Jeff Law; gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Vinod Kathail; Shail Aditya Gupta; Vidhumouli
Hunsigida; Nagaraju Mekala
Subject: RE: vectorization cost macro TARGET_V
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 06:33:40PM -0700, David Wohlferd wrote:
> As a followup to my update to the inline asm docs, I'm cleaning up the
> docs for 'Asm Labels.' The changes I want to make are pretty
> straight-forward (attached; comments welcome). But then I came across
> this line of code (f
16 matches
Mail list logo
