This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [ARM] PR ld/20608
- From: "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" <Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com>
- To: Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>, Christophe Lyon <christophe dot lyon at linaro dot org>, binutils at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 16:39:30 +0100
- Subject: Re: [ARM] PR ld/20608
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAKdteOafjnhgqshyDvk0Q5r_yT4cVgz11PrPi=ye5oOCNhQaHg@mail.gmail.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On 22/09/16 15:11, Nick Clifton wrote:
> Hi Christophe,
> Approved - please apply. Just one small nit:
> + PLT stub. If a long branch stub is needed, we'll add a
> + Thumb->Arm one and branch directly to the ARM PLT entry.
> + Here, we have to check if a pre-PLT Thumb->ARM stub
> + is needed and if it will be close enough.
> + */
> Please move the closing */ back to the end of the line above it...
So this patch got me wondering. If the PLT slot is so far away that we
need an indirect jump to get there, why don't we clone the PLT code
sequence at the veneer location? As I recall there's nothing
architectural about placing all the PLT slots together, it's just more
convenient to do that. We could even have the clone in Thumb-2 code if
that's appropriate, so that it's compatible with tail calls.