Olivier Galibert wrote:
On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 02:46:58PM -0800, Michael Eager wrote:
It would seem that the place to require the personality
routine would be in the routine which causes the stack
unwinding, not in every C++ object file, whether needed
or not.
Doesn't that otherwise very vali
On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 02:46:58PM -0800, Michael Eager wrote:
> It would seem that the place to require the personality
> routine would be in the routine which causes the stack
> unwinding, not in every C++ object file, whether needed
> or not.
Doesn't that otherwise very valid point of view brea
> GCC 4.1.1 for PowerPC generates a 162K executable for a
> minimal program "int main() { return 0; }". GCC 3.4.1
> generated a 7.2K executable. Mark Mitchell mentioned the
> same problem for ARM and proposed a patch to remove the
> reference to malloc in atexit
> (http://sourceware.org/ml/newl
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 05:11:39PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>>
>>> If you try what Michael's been saying, you'll notice that trivial
>>> C++ files get the personality routine reference even if they don't
>>> have anything with a destructor w
On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 05:11:39PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
> > If you try what Michael's been saying, you'll notice that trivial
> > C++ files get the personality routine reference even if they don't
> > have anything with a destructor which would need cleaning up.
On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 01:03:10AM +, Paul Brook wrote:
> > C++ files get the personality routine reference even if they don't
> > have anything with a destructor which would need cleaning up. We ought
> > to be able to emit (somewhat smaller) unwind information which doesn't
> > reference the
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> If you try what Michael's been saying, you'll notice that trivial
> C++ files get the personality routine reference even if they don't
> have anything with a destructor which would need cleaning up. We ought
> to be able to emit (somewhat smaller) unwind information whi
On Monday 13 November 2006 00:53, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 11:17:14PM +, Paul Brook wrote:
> > The code being unwound through (ie. with frame data) needs to be able to
> > say "I need routine X if __Unwind_Raise is used anywhere in this
> > program". I'm not aware of a
On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 11:17:14PM +, Paul Brook wrote:
> The code being unwound through (ie. with frame data) needs to be able to
> say "I need routine X if __Unwind_Raise is used anywhere in this program".
> I'm not aware of any way of doing this, other than trying it and starting
> again i
Mark Mitchell wrote:
But, the way the ABI works requires a reference from each unit which may
cause unwinding. Even if you lose the personality routine, you will
still have the exception tables, which themselves are a significant
cost. If you don't want to pay for exceptions, you really have to
Michael Eager wrote:
> Mark Mitchell wrote:
>> Michael Eager wrote:
>>> Why should the personality routine be included in all C++ programs?
>>
>> Because all non-trivial, exceptions-enabled programs, may need to do
>> stack unwinding.
>
> It would seem that the place to require the personality
> r
On Sunday 12 November 2006 22:46, Michael Eager wrote:
> Mark Mitchell wrote:
> > Michael Eager wrote:
> >> Why should the personality routine be included in all C++ programs?
> >
> > Because all non-trivial, exceptions-enabled programs, may need to do
> > stack unwinding.
>
> It would seem that th
Mark Mitchell wrote:
Michael Eager wrote:
Why should the personality routine be included in all C++ programs?
Because all non-trivial, exceptions-enabled programs, may need to do
stack unwinding.
It would seem that the place to require the personality
routine would be in the routine which ca
Michael Eager wrote:
> Mark Mitchell wrote:
>>> Generating __gxx_personality_v0 is suppressed with the -fno-exceptions
>>> flag, but it would seem better if this symbol were only generated
>>> when catch/throw was used. This happens in cxx_init_decl_processing(),
>>> which is called before it's kn
Mark Mitchell wrote:
Generating __gxx_personality_v0 is suppressed with the -fno-exceptions
flag, but it would seem better if this symbol were only generated
when catch/throw was used. This happens in cxx_init_decl_processing(),
which is called before it's known whether or not EH is really neede
Michael Eager wrote:
> Preallocating space is a good thing, particularly if the size
> can be computed at compile time. It's a little bit more awkward
> if it has to be calculated at link time.
It's a bit awkward, but it's also one of the clever tricks ARM's
proprietary linker uses, and we shoul
Mark Mitchell wrote:
Michael Eager wrote:
GCC 4.1.1 for PowerPC generates a 162K executable for a
minimal program "int main() { return 0; }". GCC 3.4.1
generated a 7.2K executable. Mark Mitchell mentioned the
same problem for ARM and proposed a patch to remove the
reference to malloc in atexi
Michael Eager wrote:
> GCC 4.1.1 for PowerPC generates a 162K executable for a
> minimal program "int main() { return 0; }". GCC 3.4.1
> generated a 7.2K executable. Mark Mitchell mentioned the
> same problem for ARM and proposed a patch to remove the
> reference to malloc in atexit
> (http://so
18 matches
Mail list logo
