search for: globadynamic

...hange the IR format > later because we limited ourselves here. > > Also, my patch does make a difference between the default and > globaldynamic. If user specifies globaldynamic, LLVM will use that > model, even if some other model would be better (it even adds support > for doing globadynamic in non-PIC code). GCC does the same. Do you know what is the rationale for that? The static linker will optimize it anyway (but not do as good a job as the compiler could). If unsure I think it is safer to go without the 'default'. It is easier to add it to IL later than to remove it if i...

...if we'd have to go and change the IR format later because we limited ourselves here. Also, my patch does make a difference between the default and globaldynamic. If user specifies globaldynamic, LLVM will use that model, even if some other model would be better (it even adds support for doing globadynamic in non-PIC code). GCC does the same. Thanks, Hans

On 4 June 2012 10:49, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: > Reviving this thread with a patch! > > And some comments inline. > > Please take a look and let me know what you think. Just a high level comment, why do you need the 4 modes + default? Can't clang just produce globaldynamic (or the attribute value) and let llvm optimize it? Since in the end the linker is

...later because we limited ourselves here. > > > > Also, my patch does make a difference between the default and > > globaldynamic. If user specifies globaldynamic, LLVM will use that > > model, even if some other model would be better (it even adds support > > for doing globadynamic in non-PIC code). GCC does the same. > > Do you know what is the rationale for that? The static linker will > optimize it anyway (but not do as good a job as the compiler could). codegen can be more efficient. E.g. less or no calls to __tls_get_addr needed. Joerg

...> later because we limited ourselves here. >> >> Also, my patch does make a difference between the default and >> globaldynamic. If user specifies globaldynamic, LLVM will use that >> model, even if some other model would be better (it even adds support >> for doing globadynamic in non-PIC code). GCC does the same. > > Do you know what is the rationale for that? The static linker will > optimize it anyway (but not do as good a job as the compiler could). I managed to dig out the original thread for GCC: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2002-09/msg00668.html It...