[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.20.13.2001192158020.7204@monopod.intra.ispras.ru>
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2020 22:13:05 +0300 (MSK)
From: Alexander Monakov <amonakov@...ras.ru>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Minor style patch to exit.c
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020, Rich Felker wrote:
> > In the context of LTO asms really need to mention referenced symbols in
> > constraints. Plus, it's good to have "the pointer is related to _start"
> > spelled out in the code.
>
> I think this is true for objects defined in C code, but not for ones
> defined in external asm or by the linker, which are not subject to any
> analysis by LTO. Both the contents of inline asm statements and the
> contents of external asm are black boxes, no? I think if they're not
> treated as such lots of reasonable things would break.
Yes, I was speaking in a more general sense. I agree here there would be
no problem technically; I'd still insist on mentioning _start in constraints
as a matter of clarity though.
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
