> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 02:47:46PM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> > On 08/29/2013 02:19 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > >So my belief is that it is safe to drop those symbols from
> > >libstdc++. Every program/DSO using them have to define its own
> > >copy of those symbols, so I believe removing them
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 02:47:46PM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> On 08/29/2013 02:19 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >So my belief is that it is safe to drop those symbols from
> >libstdc++. Every program/DSO using them have to define its own
> >copy of those symbols, so I believe removing them from libst
> Hi,
>
> On 08/29/2013 02:19 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >So my belief is that it is safe to drop those symbols from
> >libstdc++. Every program/DSO using them have to define its own
> >copy of those symbols, so I believe removing them from libstdc++
> >won't cause issues.
> Really, you should check
Hi,
On 08/29/2013 02:19 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
So my belief is that it is safe to drop those symbols from libstdc++.
Every program/DSO using them have to define its own copy of those
symbols, so I believe removing them from libstdc++ won't cause issues.
Really, you should check with Jakub befor
M
> Hi,
>
> On 08/29/2013 10:11 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >Paolo,
> >there seems to be one extra issue about this patch. It causes quite a twist
> >in libstdc++ exported symbols.
> >It is purpose of the patch to remove those that are going to be generated in
> >user programs, too.
> >I am however
Hi,
On 08/29/2013 10:11 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
Paolo,
there seems to be one extra issue about this patch. It causes quite a twist in
libstdc++ exported symbols.
It is purpose of the patch to remove those that are going to be generated in
user programs, too.
I am however bit confused about bad
Paolo,
there seems to be one extra issue about this patch. It causes quite a twist in
libstdc++ exported symbols.
It is purpose of the patch to remove those that are going to be generated in
user programs, too.
I am however bit confused about bad array. Perhaps it is an optimization
difference d
Looks good.
Jason
> On 08/26/2013 03:57 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >While analyzing the relocations of libreoffice I noticed that I can play
> >the same game w/o LTO at linker level. Making those symbols hidden truns
> >external relocations to internal and should improve runtime, too: comdat
> >sharing by dynamic lin
On 08/26/2013 03:57 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
While analyzing the relocations of libreoffice I noticed that I can play
the same game w/o LTO at linker level. Making those symbols hidden truns
external relocations to internal and should improve runtime, too: comdat
sharing by dynamic linker is expen
10 matches
Mail list logo
