[PATCH] Fix PR28575.

[Rui Ueyama via llvm-commits]

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 7:16 AM, Rafael Espíndola <
rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote:

> > I think you want to remove "That means ..." part because it doesn't
> describe the behavior of this function.
>
> Done.
>
> > Why don't you store relocation indices to section pieces? It would be
> better than having parallel arrays.
>
> The common use is for SHF_MERGE sections that don't have relocations.
> The existing code is trying to pack it to be cache friendly (uses
> bitfield).
>
> I could just remove SplitInputSection and have MergeInputSection and
> EhInputSection declare their own Pieces array. The one in
> EhInputSection would have the first relocation of each piece. What do
> you think?
>

Because of my previous change to use a hash table rather than doing binary
search, I think cache friendliness of SectionPiece is now less important.
So you may just want to add a new field. You may want to benchmark?

> Please write a function comment why you needed this function (e.g. why
> .eh_frame needs special treament).
>
> Done.
>
> New patch attached.
>
> Cheers,
> Rafael
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20160719/5ec6f432/attachment.html>