This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [Mips}Using DT tags for handling local ifuncs
- From: Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>
- To: Jack Carter <Jack dot Carter at imgtec dot com>
- Cc: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro at codesourcery dot com>, "binutils\ at sourceware dot org" <binutils at sourceware dot org>, Doug Gilmore <Doug dot Gilmore at imgtec dot com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 08:50:54 +0000
- Subject: Re: [Mips}Using DT tags for handling local ifuncs
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <4CEFBC1BE64A8048869F799EF2D2EEEE4C6DDC0F at BADAG02 dot ba dot imgtec dot org> <87r49p9dit dot fsf at talisman dot default> <alpine dot DEB dot 1 dot 10 dot 1312092333190 dot 19368 at tp dot orcam dot me dot uk> <4CEFBC1BE64A8048869F799EF2D2EEEE4C6DDFC3 at BADAG02 dot ba dot imgtec dot org>
Jack Carter <Jack.Carter@imgtec.com> writes:
> Yes gdb needs to change a little, but that is not really the issue. The
> gdb change is relatively small.
> The question is why do it if benefits in reality no one as I suspect
> will be the case?
> Where is the bang for the buck?
> That said, I am assuming I will have to do it and will make it work, but
> I don't see why really.
Experience suggests that if we take a short-cut here we'll regret it later.
And it would be much harder to add something like this once ifuncs are
already used in the wild. The behaviour of the static linker would
then depend on whether the dynamic linker supported the new tag and
we'd effectively have two forms of ifunc ABI. So if we go with the
current approach we have to be as certain as we can be that we'll never
want to revisit that decision.
Are you pushing back because of the bfd implementation? If you're
hitting problems with that then please go into details.