https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92902
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92902
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.5 |---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92902
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.4 |8.5
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92902
--- Comment #19 from Jean-Christophe Dubois ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #16)
> (In reply to Jean-Christophe Dubois from comment #15)
> > Am I missing something?
>
> YES. Most likely it will not be loaded in the instruction
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92902
--- Comment #18 from Jean-Christophe Dubois ---
(In reply to Mikael Pettersson from comment #17)
> My though reading this is that most RICSs have problems synthesizing large
> literals, so putting a jump table in .text might increase the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92902
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpelinux at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92902
--- Comment #16 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jean-Christophe Dubois from comment #15)
> Am I missing something?
YES. Most likely it will not be loaded in the instruction cache as it is
larger than the cache line size.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92902
--- Comment #15 from Jean-Christophe Dubois ---
Thanks for the feedback and the support.
Now maybe this is not the good place to ask question but I am wondering:
Most of today's processors have separate data and instruction cache. Isn't it
sub
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92902
--- Comment #14 from Richard Henderson ---
The only reason I can think for jump tables to be put into the text
section is the old aout format, which didn't have a separate read
only data section. There should be no reason to do that these days.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92902
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92902
--- Comment #12 from davem at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think that case vector stuff was written by Richard Henderson FWIW.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92902
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92902
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou ---
The SPARC port even has a specific implementation here:
/* This is how we hook in and defer the case-vector until the end of
the function. */
#define ASM_OUTPUT_ADDR_VEC(LAB,VEC) \
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92902
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|jump tables are put in the |jump tables are put into
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92902
--- Comment #8 from davem at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I cannot think of any specific reason why the jump tables were put into the
text section. I even tried to consider relocation ramifications.
Maybe this makes GOT OP linker optimizations more
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92902
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||davem at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92902
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
> So assuming the intend is to put the jump table in the rodata section,
> something seems to be broken in the build then.
No, see my earlier remark, this was intended.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92902
--- Comment #5 from Jean-Christophe Dubois ---
I guess JUMP_TABLES_IN_TEXT_SECTION is supposed to mean that the "jump tables"
should not be put in the text section.
However something is wrong then because gcc 9 (and maybe previous) is putting
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92902
--- Comment #4 from Jean-Christophe Dubois ---
Created attachment 47475
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47475=edit
assembly file with jump tables in the text section
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92902
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
The decision dates back to the rewrite of the SPARC port in 1998:
21652 davem /* Align to cache line in the function's code section. */
21652 davem function_section (current_function_decl);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92902
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
21 matches
Mail list logo
