Dear "J. William Campbell",
In message <4ca8a2e0.7090...@comcast.net> you wrote:
>
> executable instructions than programs compiled without these options.
> The program will also contain more data space for the got. If -fPIC
> actually produced a fully position-independent executable, the extra
> overhead would perhaps be tolerable. However, since it does not do this,
> (problems with initialized data etc.) there is really no advantage in
> using these compile-time options. The executable code and required data
> space for the program without these switches will "always" be smaller
> and faster than with them. In order to fix the remaining issues even
> when using -fPIC, a relocation loop must exist in the u-boot code,
> either one global one or a bunch of user written specific ones. Also,
If needed, we should have a global one only.
> It will be interesting to see what the results of this comparison
> are. For me, the no user awareness of relocation is worth a lot, and the
> fact that the difference/overhead of relocation will all be in exactly
> one place is very appealing.
Agreed.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: w...@denx.de
Fools ignore complexity. Pragmatists suffer it. Some can avoid it.
Geniuses remove it.
- Perlis's Programming Proverb #58, SIGPLAN Notices, Sept. 1982
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
