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: overhead of bfd_{get,put}*()

From: David Miller <davem at davemloft dot net>
To: joseph at codesourcery dot com
Cc: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com, iant at google dot com, binutils at sourceware dot org
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:39:50 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: overhead of bfd_{get,put}*()
References: <mcraav0djrc.fsf@dhcp-172-17-9-151.mtv.corp.google.com> <6dc9ffc81002230933k171c42f2mffcc36565efe5639@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1002231742310.7244@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>

From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@codesourcery.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 17:55:59 +0000 (UTC)

> What you can do is something along the lines of: if GCC, load using a 
> packed structure type; leave it to the GCC target to know what 
> instructions are OK for such a load.

I'm on sparc which requires alignment so this won't help me at
all.  It's going to emit the same ugly song and dance of byte
loads and shift/ors we use right now.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: overhead of bfd_{get,put}*()
  - From: Joseph S. Myers

References:
- Re: overhead of bfd_{get,put}*()
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: overhead of bfd_{get,put}*()
  - From: H.J. Lu
- Re: overhead of bfd_{get,put}*()
  - From: Joseph S. Myers

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