This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the binutils project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: String table optimization?


On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 08:53:58AM +0200, Axel Kittenberger wrote:
> On Tuesday 30 April 2002 20:51, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 09:48:36AM +0200, Axel Kittenberger wrote:
> > > Do you know of a ld switch one can issue, or can someone explain why this
> > > systematicly could not be done safely?
> >
> > Update to current binutils and gcc 3.1 prelease, and this will happen.
> 
> Is this only a binutils issue? I mean shouldn't it work with gcc 2.95.x also? 
> I think gcc has only control over one object file, however linking them 
> together should be a binutils specific issue, isn't it? Does it work with 
> cross targets also?

The compiler must tell the linker what are strings (particularly strings
safe for this optimization, not all of them are, think about "foo\0bar").

> gcc 3.0 and upward is a little troublesome to use for linux kernels, glibc's 
> and especially cross-compilers. I'm hesitating to upgrade over gcc 3 for this 
> purpose, especially a prerelease.

Can you explain why is gcc 3.x troublesome to use for glibc?
Anyway, if you cannot use gcc 3.1, you can always backport the SHF_MERGE
changes to 2.95.x or use gcc-2.96-RH which supports this for a long time.

	Jakub


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]