summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/perlstatic.h
Commit message (Collapse)AuthorAgeFilesLines
* Create perlstatic.hKarl Williamson2022-06-141-0/+33
This is used for functions that we don't suggest should be inlined, but we think the compiler will generate better code if it has full knowledge about them. At the moment, it only contains a single function which can be tail-call optimized. The Lord of the Rings quote for this file was suggested by Leon Timmermans. The proximal cause of this commit can be gleaned from this email: From - Mon Nov 16 09:20:50 2020 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00800000 X-Mozilla-Keys: Subject: Re: about commit "Revert "croak_memory_wrap is an inline function."" (khw) To: bulk88 <bulk88@hotmail.com>, perl5-porters@perl.org References: <20200429011948.14287.qmail@lists-nntp.develooper.com> From: Karl Williamson <public@khwilliamson.com> Message-ID: <6f38382c-8fb5-ba1a-51c6-409fa5b56d2b@khwilliamson.com> Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2020 09:20:41 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.4.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200429011948.14287.qmail@lists-nntp.develooper.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 4/28/20 7:19 PM, bulk88 wrote: > https://perl5.git.perl.org/perl5.git/commitdiff/d68c938a1e6c6b4bfe907decbb4929780ee06eae > > > Why was this done? Perl_croak_memory_wrap is supposed to be a static > linkage, not globally visible C function, in every perl .o file that the > CC/linker should toss the static func if its not used. I wanted to avoid > the PLT/GOT runtime C symbol substitution/LDPRELOAD mechanism and let > the CC turn Perl_croak_memory_wrap into a single conditional jump > (offset from current instruction pointer), with no return and no C stack > entry, jump instruction instead of > > call get_EIP //x86 32 only > mov eax, *(eax_aka_eip+offset into PLT) > call eax I reverted this because, first of all, gcc with the appropriate -W options raised warnings that it was disregarding the request and was not inlining this function, and 2nd of all, there was no indication in the comments as to why this function had been inlined.