>>> On 18.02.11 at 18:53, "H.J. Lu" wrote:
> How about only allowing REL relocations in executables and DSOes?
That'd be at least part of it, but I'd still prefer not forbidding them
altogether, but also not requiring an implementation to support
them (just to repeat it - in a long abandoned new
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 12:11 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 17.02.11 at 18:59, "H.J. Lu" wrote:
> >> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 8:11 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> On 17.02.11 at 16:49, "H.J. Lu" wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 7:44 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >> > According to Mozil
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 12:11 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 17.02.11 at 18:59, "H.J. Lu" wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 8:11 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 17.02.11 at 16:49, "H.J. Lu" wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 7:44 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> > According to Mozilla folks how
>>> On 18.02.11 at 00:07, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> So one way to cut down the size of .rela.dyn section would be a relocation
> like
> R_X86_64_RELATIVE_BLOCK where applying such a relocation with r_offset O and
> r_addend N would be:
> uint64_t *ptr = O;
> for (i = 0; i < N; i++)
> ptr[i] += bias
>>> On 17.02.11 at 18:59, "H.J. Lu" wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 8:11 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 17.02.11 at 16:49, "H.J. Lu" wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 7:44 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > According to Mozilla folks however REL+RELA scheme used by EABI leads
> > to signific
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:49:56PM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> The blog claims
> Architecture libxul.so size relocations size%
> x86 21,869,684 1,884,864 8.61%
> x86-6429,629,040 5,751,984 19.41%
>
> The REL encoding also grows twice for 64bit target?
>
>
On 02/17/2011 02:49 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 04:44:53PM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> According to Mozilla folks however REL+RELA scheme used by EABI leads
> to significandly smaller libxul.so size
>
> According to http://glandium.org/blog/?p=1177 the differen
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 04:44:53PM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > > > According to Mozilla folks however REL+RELA scheme used by EABI leads
> > > > to significandly smaller libxul.so size
> > > >
> > > > According to http://glandium.org/blog/?p=1177 the difference is about
> > > > 4-5MB
> > > > (
On 02/17/2011 10:06 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 04:44:53PM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
According to Mozilla folks however REL+RELA scheme used by EABI leads
to significandly smaller libxul.so size
According to http://glandium.org/blog/?p=1177 the difference
On Thu, 17 Feb 2011, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > REL is horrible pain, we shouldn't ever add new REL targets.
>
> According to Mozilla folks however REL+RELA scheme used by EABI leads
> to significandly smaller libxul.so size
>
> According to http://glandium.org/blog/?p=1177 the difference is about 4
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 04:44:53PM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > > According to Mozilla folks however REL+RELA scheme used by EABI leads
> > > to significandly smaller libxul.so size
> > >
> > > According to http://glandium.org/blog/?p=1177 the difference is about
> > > 4-5MB
> > > (out of approxi
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 8:11 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 17.02.11 at 16:49, "H.J. Lu" wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 7:44 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> According to Mozilla folks however REL+RELA scheme used by EABI leads
> to significandly smaller libxul.so size
>
> Accordi
>>> On 17.02.11 at 16:49, "H.J. Lu" wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 7:44 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>>> > According to Mozilla folks however REL+RELA scheme used by EABI leads
>>> > to significandly smaller libxul.so size
>>> >
>>> > According to http://glandium.org/blog/?p=1177 the difference is ab
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 7:44 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> > According to Mozilla folks however REL+RELA scheme used by EABI leads
>> > to significandly smaller libxul.so size
>> >
>> > According to http://glandium.org/blog/?p=1177 the difference is about 4-5MB
>> > (out of approximately 20-30MB share
> > According to Mozilla folks however REL+RELA scheme used by EABI leads
> > to significandly smaller libxul.so size
> >
> > According to http://glandium.org/blog/?p=1177 the difference is about 4-5MB
> > (out of approximately 20-30MB shared lib)
>
> This is orthogonal to x32 psABI.
Understood.
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 7:22 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 08:35:26AM +, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> > >>> On 16.02.11 at 21:04, "H. Peter Anvin" wrote:
>> > > On 02/16/2011 11:22 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> > >> Hi,
>> > >>
>> > >> I updated x32 psABI draft to version 0.2 to change
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 08:35:26AM +, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > >>> On 16.02.11 at 21:04, "H. Peter Anvin" wrote:
> > > On 02/16/2011 11:22 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> I updated x32 psABI draft to version 0.2 to change x32 library path
> > >> from lib32 to libx32 since lib32 i
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 08:35:26AM +, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 16.02.11 at 21:04, "H. Peter Anvin" wrote:
> > On 02/16/2011 11:22 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I updated x32 psABI draft to version 0.2 to change x32 library path
> >> from lib32 to libx32 since lib32 is used for ia3
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:35 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 16.02.11 at 21:04, "H. Peter Anvin" wrote:
>> On 02/16/2011 11:22 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I updated x32 psABI draft to version 0.2 to change x32 library path
>>> from lib32 to libx32 since lib32 is used for ia32 libraries on
>>> On 16.02.11 at 21:04, "H. Peter Anvin" wrote:
> On 02/16/2011 11:22 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I updated x32 psABI draft to version 0.2 to change x32 library path
>> from lib32 to libx32 since lib32 is used for ia32 libraries on Debian,
>> Ubuntu and other derivative distributions. The
On 2/16/2011 3:46 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Chris Metcalf wrote:
>>> For what it's worth, the Tilera 64-bit architecture (forthcoming) includes
>>> support for a 32-bit compatibility layer that is similar to x3
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Chris Metcalf wrote:
>> For what it's worth, the Tilera 64-bit architecture (forthcoming) includes
>> support for a 32-bit compatibility layer that is similar to x32. It uses
>> 64-bit registers throughout
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> For what it's worth, the Tilera 64-bit architecture (forthcoming) includes
> support for a 32-bit compatibility layer that is similar to x32. It uses
> 64-bit registers throughout (e.g. for double and long long), but 32-bit
> addresses. Th
On 2/16/2011 3:04 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 02/16/2011 11:22 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I updated x32 psABI draft to version 0.2 to change x32 library path
>> from lib32 to libx32 since lib32 is used for ia32 libraries on Debian,
>> Ubuntu and other derivative distributions. The new x32
> I'm wondering if we should define a section header flag (sh_flags)
> and/or an ELF header flag (e_flags) for x32 for the people unhappy about
> keying it to the ELF class...
I don't see what's wrong with paying attention to the class. IMHO sh_flags
only makes sense if you might ever mix x32 and
On 02/16/2011 11:22 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I updated x32 psABI draft to version 0.2 to change x32 library path
> from lib32 to libx32 since lib32 is used for ia32 libraries on Debian,
> Ubuntu and other derivative distributions. The new x32 psABI is
> available from:
>
> https://sites.goog
Hi,
I updated x32 psABI draft to version 0.2 to change x32 library path
from lib32 to libx32 since lib32 is used for ia32 libraries on Debian,
Ubuntu and other derivative distributions. The new x32 psABI is
available from:
https://sites.google.com/site/x32abi/home
--
H.J.
27 matches
Mail list logo
