On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:31 AM, Richard Guenther <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:31 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 8:57 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 6:05 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 7:57 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:40 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 12:28 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 2:40 AM, Richard Guenther >>>>>>> <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:12 AM, H.J. Lu <hongjiu...@intel.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 05:20:48PM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote: >>>>>>>>>> This patch uses .init_array/.fini_array sections instead of >>>>>>>>>> .ctors/.dtors sections if mixing .init_array/.fini_array and >>>>>>>>>> .ctors/.dtors sections with init_priority works. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It removes .ctors/.ctors sections from executables and DSOes, which >>>>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>>>> remove one function call at startup time from each executable and >>>>>>>>>> DSO. >>>>>>>>>> It should reduce image size and improve system startup time. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If a platform with a working .init_array/.fini_array support needs a >>>>>>>>>> different .init_array/.fini_array implementation, it can set >>>>>>>>>> use_initfini_array to no. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Since .init_array/.fini_array is a target feature. >>>>>>>>>> --enable-initfini-array >>>>>>>>>> is default to no unless the native run-time test is passed. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> To pass the native run-time test, a linker with SORT_BY_INIT_PRIORITY >>>>>>>>>> support is required. The binutils patch is available at >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2010-12/msg00466.html >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Linker patch has been checked in. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This patch passed 32bit/64bit regression test on Linux/x86-64. Any >>>>>>>>>> comments? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This updated patch fixes build on Linux/ia64 and should work on >>>>>>>>> others. >>>>>>>>> Any comments? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes. This is stage1 material. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Here is the updated patch. OK for trunk? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> H.J. >>>>>>> ---- >>>>>>> 2011-03-14 H.J. Lu <hongjiu...@intel.com> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> PR target/46770 >>>>>>> * acinclude.m4 (gcc_AC_INITFINI_ARRAY): Removed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * config.gcc (use_initfini_array): New variable. >>>>>>> Use initfini-array.o if supported. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * crtstuff.c: Don't generate .ctors nor .dtors sections if >>>>>>> NO_CTORS_DTORS_SECTIONS is defined. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * configure.ac: Remove gcc_AC_INITFINI_ARRAY. Add >>>>>>> --enable-initfini-array and check if .init_array can be used with >>>>>>> .ctors. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * configure: Regenerated. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * config/initfini-array.c: New. >>>>>>> * config/initfini-array.h: Likewise. >>>>>>> * config/t-initfini-array: Likewise. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * config/arm/arm.c (arm_asm_init_sections): Call >>>>>>> elf_initfini_array_init_sections if NO_CTORS_DTORS_SECTIONS >>>>>>> is defined. >>>>>>> * config/avr/avr.c (avr_asm_init_sections): Likewise. >>>>>>> * config/ia64/ia64.c (ia64_asm_init_sections): Likewise. >>>>>>> * config/mep/mep.c (mep_asm_init_sections): Likewise. >>>>>>> * config/microblaze/microblaze.c >>>>>>> (microblaze_elf_asm_init_sections): >>>>>>> Likewise. >>>>>>> * config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_elf_asm_init_sections): >>>>>>> Likewise. >>>>>>> * config/stormy16/stormy16.c (xstormy16_asm_init_sections): >>>>>>> Likewise. >>>>>>> * config/v850/v850.c (v850_asm_init_sections): Likewise. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> PING: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg00760.html >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Any comments? Any objections? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Here is the patch updated for the current trunk. OK for trunk? >>>> >>> >>> PING,. >> >> Hi Richard, >> >> You commented my patch was stage 1 material: >> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-01/msg01989.html >> >> Is my patch: >> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg00760.html >> >> OK for trunk? > > I can't approve the configury changes and would like to defer > to target maintainers for the target specific changes. That said, > I'm not familiar enough with the area of the patch. But yes, > it's stage1 now - so if anyone else wants to approve this patch...
My first attempt: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg00589.html only affects x86. I changed it to generic based on the feedbacks. But other target maintainers show no interests. Should I make it x86 only first? Each target can enable it if needed. Thanks. -- H.J.
