Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 15:16:16 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: salvador <salvador AT inti DOT gov DOT ar>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: .align directives in libc.a
In-Reply-To: <3781FE13.8DF83801@inti.gov.ar>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990707151540.2851G-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Tue, 6 Jul 1999, salvador wrote:

> I added a special section to my link configuration file (djgpp.djl?). This
> section is very well aligned and I put special functions there.
> What about including it in 2.03 so we can experiment?

Why don't we simply do it by default?  I don't like the idea of putting
this into djgpp.djl, since that file is distributed with Binutils, but
we could configure Binutils to align all sections better then they do
now.

> > The Intel manuals seem to indicate that optimal alignment of code is
> > also 16 bytes, at least for the targets of call/jmp instructions under
> > some circumstances.  Again, unless the code section is 16-byte
> > aligned, no clever use of .align by the code will ever be able to
> > achieve that.
> 
> Sections should be aligned to 32 bytes at least.

Why?  At least for the data sections, 8 bytes seem to be enough: only
long double variables need more.