[llvm-dev] why do undefined globals end up in .data instead of .bss?
Tobias Edler von Koch via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Tue Apr 25 13:51:54 PDT 2017
On 04/25/2017 03:48 PM, Andrew Kelley wrote:
> Can you elaborate a little on why you think "undef" is the correct
> value? Inside LLVM, undef essentially means "any value we choose".
> The language reference has a section on this. It would be entirely
> correct if we emitted all 1s instead of all 0s for undef. If you
> really want it to be .bss, zeroinitializer seems to be the better
> Yes, any value would be semantically correct. What I am communicating
> to LLVM is "any value will be fine here" which means that LLVM can do
> whatever it wants here to achieve better performance, compile time
> speed, smaller object size, or another goal that I have not thought
> of. And in this email thread I am suggesting that LLVM should probably
> choose the smaller object size goal in this situation, choose 0 for
> the value, and put it in .bss.
Ah ok, in that case it makes sense. As Eli said, feel free to submit a
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev