* Andreas Schwab:
> On Apr 17 2019, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
>> * Andreas Schwab:
>>
>>> On Apr 17 2019, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>>
Not just that, .bss adds to the commit charge,
>>>
>>> Only one page at most.
>>
>> That would be a bug.
>
> You cannot avoid it for the page shared with .data,
On Apr 17 2019, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Andreas Schwab:
>
>> On Apr 17 2019, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>
>>> Not just that, .bss adds to the commit charge,
>>
>> Only one page at most.
>
> That would be a bug.
You cannot avoid it for the page shared with .data, unless you force
.bss to be page a
* Andreas Schwab:
> On Apr 17 2019, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
>> Not just that, .bss adds to the commit charge,
>
> Only one page at most.
That would be a bug. All of it is anonymous memory which needs backing
from RAM or swap, in case the process writes to it.
Thanks,
Florian
On Apr 17 2019, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Not just that, .bss adds to the commit charge,
Only one page at most.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, sch...@suse.de
GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE 1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA B9D7
"And now for something completely different."
* Richard Biener:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 9:19 AM Thomas König wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> thanks a lot for the extensive discussion :-)
>>
>> How should we now proceed, first for gcc 9, snd then for backporting?
>> Use Richard‘s patch with the corresponding Fortran FE change?
>
> Btw, for the testc
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 9:19 AM Thomas König wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> thanks a lot for the extensive discussion :-)
>
> How should we now proceed, first for gcc 9, snd then for backporting?
> Use Richard‘s patch with the corresponding Fortran FE change?
Btw, for the testcase the fortran FE could also s
Hi,
thanks a lot for the extensive discussion :-)
How should we now proceed, first for gcc 9, snd then for backporting?
Use Richard‘s patch with the corresponding Fortran FE change?
Regards
Thomas
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 12:16:16PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 11:33:39AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > * Segher Boessenkool:
> >
> > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 01:54:11PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > >> * Richard Biener:
> > >>
> > >> > Of course adding sth like a
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 11:33:39AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Segher Boessenkool:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 01:54:11PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> * Richard Biener:
> >>
> >> > Of course adding sth like a .robss section would be nice.
> >>
> >> I think this is strictly a link edi
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 12:05:56PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 11:33 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
> >
> > * Segher Boessenkool:
> >
> > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 01:54:11PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > >> * Richard Biener:
> > >>
> > >> > Of course adding sth like a .rob
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 11:33:39AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Segher Boessenkool:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 01:54:11PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> * Richard Biener:
> >>
> >> > Of course adding sth like a .robss section would be nice.
> >>
> >> I think this is strictly a link edi
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 11:33 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * Segher Boessenkool:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 01:54:11PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> * Richard Biener:
> >>
> >> > Of course adding sth like a .robss section would be nice.
> >>
> >> I think this is strictly a link editor issue
* Segher Boessenkool:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 01:54:11PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Richard Biener:
>>
>> > Of course adding sth like a .robss section would be nice.
>>
>> I think this is strictly a link editor issue because a read-only PT_LOAD
>> directive with a memory size larger tha
On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 01:54:11PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Richard Biener:
>
> > Of course adding sth like a .robss section would be nice.
>
> I think this is strictly a link editor issue because a read-only PT_LOAD
> directive with a memory size larger than the file size already produce
* Richard Biener:
> Of course adding sth like a .robss section would be nice.
I think this is strictly a link editor issue because a read-only PT_LOAD
directive with a memory size larger than the file size already produces
read-only zero pages, without requiring a file allocation.
Thanks,
Floria
>
> This won't work with LTO. Note we have the issue in the middle-end as well
> since we promote variables we see are not written to to TREE_READONLY.
> This can be seen with (the somewhat artificial...):
>
> int a[1024*1024] = { 0 };
>
> int __attribute__((noinline)) foo() { return *(volatile
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 8:48 PM Thomas Koenig wrote:
>
> Hello world,
>
> the attached patch fixes a 8/9 regression where _def_init, an internal
> Fortran variable containing only zeros, was placed into the .rodata
> section. This led to a large increase in executable size.
>
> There should be no
Hi Thomas,
Thanks for your determination in dealing with this. It has been on my
TODO list for a long time but, like you at the outset, I had no idea
how to deal with it.
OK on the fortran side.
Paul
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 at 19:48, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>
> Hello world,
>
> the attached patch fix
Hello world,
the attached patch fixes a 8/9 regression where _def_init, an internal
Fortran variable containing only zeros, was placed into the .rodata
section. This led to a large increase in executable size.
There should be no impact on other languages because the change to
varasm.c is guarded
19 matches
Mail list logo
