The primary thing I don't like is that you put additional work on the user of got_offsets, to always have to mask the main value to both get and set it. If this could be encapsulated through accessors functions, or bitfields, then this would be much less of an issue.
Small stylistic issue is that I (personally) don't like '& -2' mask. I think this obfuscates the intent, and the simple '& ~1' is more usual, and it should not be any slower. -2 also assumes two's complement implementations... I can only speak as someone who is trying to get into the project. tinycc came from 'obfusticated' competition, and is already quite complicated and not particularly well commented/documented. This complexity has already stopped me from contributing when I wanted to add mach-o executable support. I would personally prefer the project to go in the 'un-obfusticated' direction... Miki. On 6 November 2012 06:02, Thomas Preud'homme <[email protected]> wrote: > Greetings everyone, > > while working on adding support for R_ARM_THM_JUMP24 to a PLT entry, I > needed > to store an extra information for some symbols about the nature of the call > sites of a PLT entry. Since most symbols don't have a PLT entry, I was > reluctant in adding even a byte for all symbols in a set of object file. > Then I > realized bit 0 of entries in the got_offsets array (in TCCState) is always > 0 > and could be reused for my purpose. > > Currently (see attached patch 0002-Generate-PLT-thumb-stub-only-when- > necessary.patch), I reuse the bit 0 without using bitfields. This has the > advantage of being able to reuse put_got_offset() function by changing the > assignment of the value with a bit ORing but doesn't mark explicitely to > the > compiler what's going on. On the other hand, I could use bitfields but that > would require some more modifications to put_got_offset to be able to set a > got_offset and/or the bit 0. > > Note that in both cases all access to got_offset needs to be changed: if > bitfields is used the value of got_offset needs to be shifted by one bit > to the > left, else, the value needs to be ANDed with -2 to ignore bit 0. > > What's your opinion about it? What's the best approach? Is there another > one > possible? (I initially thought about storing the extra information in a > hash > table but it requires to add an hashtable implementation while I could > reuse > the unused bit of got_offsets). > > Best regards, > > Thomas Preud'homme > > _______________________________________________ > Tinycc-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel > >
_______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
