This is the mail archive of the binutils@sourceware.org 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] |
Hi, I implemented (b2) as we discussed above. Could you please take a look. thanks, Alexander 2013/4/3 Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com>: > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Cary Coutant <ccoutant@google.com> wrote: >>> Now I see your point, thank you for clarification. If we choose (b2) >>> we would not be able to >>> create only one Output_merge_string_data for string literals with >>> different alignments (cause each >>> Output_merge_string_data has only one string pool and its alignment >>> would be fixed) and therefore >>> never would be able to merge the same string from, say, rodata.str1.4 >>> and .rodata.str.1.8. >>> >>> It seems like a little restriction to me (I don't know how much memory >>> we can get out of that), but if you are okey I'll do (b2). >> >> Given the discussion earlier in the thread about why the compilers >> would generate a .rodata.str1.XX section, it seems clear that there is >> little likelihood that we'd ever find any strings to merge across the >> different sections. (The only case I can think of would be when >> linking code generated by two different compilers.) I'm fine with this >> restriction; it's strictly better than what gold does now. Ian? > > I agree. > > Ian
Attachment:
merging_string_literals_04f.patch
Description: Binary data
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |