[U-Boot] Relocation size penalty calculation

[Joakim Tjernlund]

Graeme Russ <graeme.russ at gmail.com> wrote on 10/10/2009 12:38:19:
>
> On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 8:27 PM, Joakim Tjernlund
> <joakim.tjernlund at transmode.se> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Graeme Russ <graeme.russ at gmail.com> wrote on 10/10/2009 10:46:52:
> >>
> >> On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Joakim Tjernlund
> >> <joakim.tjernlund at transmode.se> wrote:
> >> > Graeme Russ <graeme.russ at gmail.com> wrote on 10/10/2009 06:43:52:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Joakim Tjernlund
> >> >> <joakim.tjernlund at transmode.se> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 9:27 AM, J. William Campbell
> >> >> >> <jwilliamcampbell at comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> > Graeme Russ wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 2:58 AM, J. William Campbell
> >> >> >> >> <jwilliamcampbell at comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>> Graeme Russ wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>> Out of curiosity, I wanted to see just how much of a size penalty I am
> >> >> >> >>>> incurring by using gcc -fpic / ld -pic on my x86 u-boot build. Here are
> >> >> >> >>>> the results (fixed width font will help - its space, not tab,
> >> >> >> >>>> formatted):
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>> Section             non-reloc     reloc
> >> >> >> >>>> ---------------------------------------
> >> >> >> >>>> .text                000118c4  000137fc <- 0x1f38 bytes (~8kB) bigger
> >> >> >> >>>> .rodata              00005bad  000059d0
> >> >> >> >>>> .interp              n/a       00000013
> >> >> >> >>>> .dynstr              n/a       00000648
> >> >> >> >>>> .hash                n/a       00000428
> >> >> >> >>>> .eh_frame            00003268  000034fc
> >> >> >> >>>> .data                00000a6c  000001dc
> >> >> >> >>>> .data.rel            n/a       00000098
> >> >> >> >>>> .data.rel.ro.local   n/a       00000178
> >> >> >> >>>> .data.rel.local      n/a       000007e4
> >> >> >> >>>> .got                 00000000  000001f0
> >> >> >> >>>> .got.plt             n/a       0000000c
> >> >> >> >>>> .rel.got             n/a       000003e0
> >> >> >> >>>> .rel.dyn             n/a       00001228
> >> >> >> >>>> .dynsym              n/a       00000850
> >> >> >> >>>> .dynamic             n/a       00000080
> >> >> >> >>>> .u_boot_cmd          000003c0  000003c0
> >> >> >> >>>> .bss                 00001a34  00001a34
> >> >> >> >>>> .realmode            00000166  00000166
> >> >> >> >>>> .bios                0000053e  0000053e
> >> >> >> >>>> =======================================
> >> >> >> >>>> Total                0001d5dd  00022287 <- 0x4caa bytes (~19kB) bigger
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>> Its more than a 16% increase in size!!!
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>> .text accounts for a little under half of the total bloat, and of that,
> >> >> >> >>>> the crude dynamic loader accounts for only 341 bytes
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>> Hi Graeme,
> >> >> >> >>>     I would be interested in a third option (column), the x86 build with
> >> >> >> >>> just -mrelocateable but NOT -fpic. It will not be definitive because
> >> >> >> >>> there
> >> >> >> >>> will be extra code that references the GOT and missing code to do some of
> >> >> >> >>> the relocation, but it would still be interesting.
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> x86 does not have -mrelocatable. This is a PPC only option :(
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Hi Graeme,
> >> >> >> >          You are unfortunately correct. However, I wonder if we can get
> >> >> >> > essentially the same result by executing the final ld step with the
> >> >> >> > --emit-relocs switch included. This may also include some "extra" sections
> >> >> >> > that we would want to strip out, but if it works, it could give all
> >> >> >> > ELF-based systems a way to a relocatable u-boot.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I don't think --emit-relocs is necessary with -pic. I haven't gone through
> >> >> >> all the permutations to see if there is a smaller option, but gcc -fpic and
> >> >> >> ld -pie creates enough information to perform relocation on the x86
> >> >> >> platform
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Try -fvisibility=hidden
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks - Shaved another 2539 bytes off the binary
> >> >>
> >> >> Also found out how to get rid of .eh_frame (crept in when I upgraded to
> >> >> gcc 4.4.1) with -fno-dwarf2-cfi-asm, so that shaves another 13452 bytes
> >> >>
> >> >> Total saving of 15.6k
> >> >
> >> > Great, so now you are back at just a few percent added I guess?
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Not really - The .eh_frame saving applies to both relocated and non
> >> relocated builds
> >
> > OK, so you didn't use PIC before at all?
> >
> > Anyway I think you can do more. Using -Bsymbolic you should get
> > away with RELATIVE relocs only and be able to skip a lot of segments above.
> > Have a look at uClibc ldso/ldso/dl-startup.c
> >
> >
>
> My build options thus far are:
>
> PLATFORM_RELFLAGS += -fpie -fvisibility=hidden
> PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += -fno-dwarf2-cfi-asm
> PLATFORM_LDFLAGS += -pie
>
> -fpic / -pic make no difference

not on x86, on ppc it is a big difference.

>
> Interestingly, -Bsymbolic adds exactly 8 bytes to .dynamic, but doesn't
> change the size of any other section
>
> Pulling apart the relocation sections, it seems that all relocations are
> already RELATIVE even without -Bsymbolic

Ah, that is because you built an exe with -pie
Then you should be able to drop everything but the RELATIVE
from the linking, or almost in any case.

 Jocke