[PATCH] Do not use layout-before to layout atoms.

[Nick Kledzik]

On Mar 26, 2014, at 2:44 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 2:23 PM, kledzik at apple.com <kledzik at apple.com> wrote:
> 
>   Given your description of COFF, I'm not sure follow-on atom/references is the right model.
> 
>   We probably want a way to order sections.  For instance, the darwin linker automatically arranges sections for best performance.
> 
> Yes, follow-on atom/references model is not probably the best model for COFF. It's too fine grained. The unit of layout is not an atom (symbol) but a section. We never want to rearrange or dead-strip each atom. AFAIK so is true for ELF and Mach-O.

The darwin linker very much dead strips and re-orders mach-o at the atom level.

-Nick

> 
>   If in LayoutPass, compareAtomsSub() was enhanced to sort sections, then all COFF would need to do is have .text$a sort before .text$b and then atoms would be all laid out in the order you want.  The COFF Writer could then ignore the trailing $blah and put the range of atoms from all .text$* sections into one .text section.
> 
> Basically agree. Current LayoutPass wouldn't work for the COFF suffix rule because compareAtomsSub() currently does not sort atoms by section name. However adding such rule seems to be trivial.
>  
>   In terms of improving performance of this pass, we could add a flag to the MergedFile that indicates if any Atom in it has a follow-on (layout before or layout after reference).  If there are none (which is common for COFF and mach-o), then all the _followOnRoots and _followOnNexts set up can be skipped.
> 
> http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D3164
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20140326/1bd1c208/attachment.html>