https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100593
--- Comment #11 from Fangrui Song <i at maskray dot me> --- (In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #10) > Is there something wrong or undesirable with making this under -fno-plt (or > the noplt attribute as in your example)? > > (after all, it is a kind of PLT-avoidance transformation, just for > addressing rather than direct calling/jumping) -fno-plt is generally undesired due to longer branch instructions and performance lost when the branch target is defined in the exe/so when the linker is gold/ld.lld (they cannot optimize jmp *got to jmp target) For non-x86, -fno-plt doesn't exist at all. If implemented, there requires many more instructions which are certainly undesirable. So -fno-plt can never be a default. Using GOT to take the address of an external function in -fno-pic is just a better default. I want the behavior to become the behavior, so it should not be under -fno-plt.
