This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [MIPS] R_MIPS_GOT_DISP interferes with lazy binding
- From: Lee Duhem <lee dot duhem at gmail dot com>
- To: binutils at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 11:08:17 +0800
- Subject: Re: [MIPS] R_MIPS_GOT_DISP interferes with lazy binding
- References: <CAOSer0CqJNce0fpfanBR0ONOm8Gp3B+A9jzQN1Nv9nxbec2KfA at mail dot gmail dot com> <87fvxz9j2h dot fsf at sandifor-thinkpad dot stglab dot manchester dot uk dot ibm dot com>
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 6:32 PM, Richard Sandiford
> Lee Duhem <email@example.com> writes:
>> My questions are:
>> 1. Are the relocation types of DRIBlockHandler and DRIWakeupHandler correct?
> It depends on what the source code is doing. The two DRIBlockHandler
> R_MIPS_CALL16s sites are obviously direct calls to the function, but is
> the R_MIPS_GOT_DISP site too? Or is the code taking the address of
> DRIBlockHandler, e.g. to use it as a callback?
There is only one direct call for DRIBlockHandler in glxdri.c. If it is compiled
with -O0, gcc will generate one R_MIPS_CALL16 relocation for it, but with -O2,
three relocations, two R_MIPS_CALL16 and one R_MIPS_GOT_DISP, will be
For DRIWakeupHandler, there is also only one direct call in glxdri.c. And gcc
with -O0 generates one R_MIPS_CALL16 relocation for it, but with -O2, two
Does this mean that it is a gcc bug?
> It's a bug if the compiler is generating a R_MIPS_GOT_DISP for
> a direct call. (This might happen, e.g., due to overly aggressive
> hoisting or CSE.) On the other hand, R_MIPS_GOT_DISP is the correct
> choice if something is taking the address of the function.
Thanks for your time and explanations.