Re: CREL relocation format for ELF (was: RELLEB)

2024-03-28 Thread Fangrui Song via Gcc
On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 6:04 AM Alan Modra wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 06:51:41PM -0700, Fangrui Song wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 5:16 PM Fangrui Song wrote: > > > I propose RELLEB, a new format offering significant file size > > > reductions: 17.2% (x86-64), 16.5% (aarch64), and ev

Re: CREL relocation format for ELF (was: RELLEB)

2024-03-28 Thread Alan Modra via Gcc
On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 06:51:41PM -0700, Fangrui Song wrote: > On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 5:16 PM Fangrui Song wrote: > > I propose RELLEB, a new format offering significant file size > > reductions: 17.2% (x86-64), 16.5% (aarch64), and even 32.4% (riscv64)! > > > > Your thoughts on RELLEB are welco

Re: CREL relocation format for ELF (was: RELLEB)

2024-03-28 Thread Fangrui Song via Gcc
On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 6:51 PM Fangrui Song wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 5:16 PM Fangrui Song wrote: > > > > The relocation formats REL and RELA for ELF are inefficient. In a > > release build of Clang for x86-64, .rela.* sections consume a > > significant portion (approximately 20.9%) of

CREL relocation format for ELF (was: RELLEB)

2024-03-22 Thread Fangrui Song via Gcc
On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 5:16 PM Fangrui Song wrote: > > The relocation formats REL and RELA for ELF are inefficient. In a > release build of Clang for x86-64, .rela.* sections consume a > significant portion (approximately 20.9%) of the file size. > > I propose RELLEB, a new format offering signif