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]

Re: difference between 32 bit and 64 bit .so

From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
To: Mike Frysinger <vapier at gentoo dot org>
Cc: binutils at sourceware dot org, Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com>, MK <stardust496 at gmail dot com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 12:33:10 +0200
Subject: Re: difference between 32 bit and 64 bit .so
References: <AANLkTikOrWoahYASAWvp_isqEfG4QDl0R_oQvMwdVmXq@mail.gmail.com> <20100723055904.GY19525@bubble.grove.modra.org> <201007230626.20362.vapier@gentoo.org>
Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>

On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 06:26:19AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday, July 23, 2010 01:59:04 Alan Modra wrote:
> > It would be better to wonder why we still support non-PIC libraries on
> > 32-bit x86.
> 
> because the performance penalty is larger than many people are willing to 
> accept.  there certainly are real world applications where larger memory 
> footprint (due to textrels) are completely worth the speed gain.

It isn't just larger memory footprint though (and longer startup), it is
also bad for security reasons, because you need to allow execution of code
from pages that have been writable by the process.  And, that is, IMNSHO,
never worth the speed gain.

Just use x86-64 instead of x86 if speed is a problem.

	Jakub

Follow-Ups:
- Re: difference between 32 bit and 64 bit .so
  - From: Mike Frysinger

References:
- difference between 32 bit and 64 bit .so
  - From: MK
- Re: difference between 32 bit and 64 bit .so
  - From: Alan Modra
- Re: difference between 32 bit and 64 bit .so
  - From: Mike Frysinger

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