llvm-project/lld/docs/NewLLD.rst

The ELF and COFF Linkers
========================

We started rewriting the ELF (Unix) and COFF (Windows) linkers in May 2015.
Since then, we have been making a steady progress towards providing
drop-in replacements for the system linkers.

Currently, the Windows support is mostly complete and is about 2x faster
than the linker that comes as a part of Micrsoft Visual Studio toolchain.

The ELF support is in progress and is able to link large programs
such as Clang or LLD itself. Unless your program depends on linker scripts,
you can expect it to be linkable with LLD.
It is currently about 1.2x to 2x faster than GNU gold linker.
We aim to make it a drop-in replacement for the GNU linker.

We expect that FreeBSD is going to be the first large system
to adopt LLD as the system linker.
We are working on it in collaboration with the FreeBSD project.

The linkers are notably small; as of March 2016,
the COFF linker is under 7k LOC and the ELF linker is about 10k LOC.

The linkers are designed to be as fast and simple as possible.
Because it is simple, it is easy to extend it to support new features.
There a few key design choices that we made to achieve these goals.
We will describe them in this document.

The ELF Linker as a Library
---------------------------

You can embed LLD to your program by linking against it and calling the linker's
entry point function lld::elf::link.

The current policy is that it is your reponsibility to give trustworthy object
files. The function is guaranteed to return as long as you do not pass corrupted
or malicious object files. A corrupted file could cause a fatal error or SEGV.
That being said, you don't need to worry too much about it if you create object
files in the usual way and give them to the linker. It is naturally expected to
work, or otherwise it's a linker's bug.

Design
======

We will describe the design of the linkers in the rest of the document.

Key Concepts
------------

Linkers are fairly large pieces of software.
There are many design choices you have to make to create a complete linker.

This is a list of design choices we've made for ELF and COFF LLD.
We believe that these high-level design choices achieved a right balance
between speed, simplicity and extensibility.

* Implement as native linkers

  We implemented the linkers as native linkers for each file format.

  The two linkers share the same design but do not share code.
  Sharing code makes sense if the benefit is worth its cost.
  In our case, ELF and COFF are different enough that we thought the layer to
  abstract the differences wouldn't worth its complexity and run-time cost.
  Elimination of the abstract layer has greatly simplified the implementation.

* Speed by design

  One of the most important thing in archiving high performance is to
  do less rather than do it efficiently.
  Therefore, the high-level design matters more than local optimizations.
  Since we are trying to create a high-performance linker,
  it is very important to keep the design as efficient as possible.

  Broadly speaking, we do not do anything until we have to do it.
  For example, we do not read section contents or relocations
  until we need them to continue linking.
  When we need to do some costly operation (such as looking up
  a hash table for each symbol), we do it only once.
  We obtain a handler (which is typically just a pointer to actual data)
  on the first operation and use it throughout the process.

* Efficient archive file handling

  LLD's handling of archive files (the files with ".a" file extension) is different
  from the traditional Unix linkers and pretty similar to Windows linkers.
  We'll describe how the traditional Unix linker handles archive files,
  what the problem is, and how LLD approached the problem.

  The traditional Unix linker maintains a set of undefined symbols during linking.
  The linker visits each file in the order as they appeared in the command line
  until the set becomes empty. What the linker would do depends on file type.

  - If the linker visits an object file, the linker links object files to the result,
    and undefined symbols in the object file are added to the set.

  - If the linker visits an archive file, it checks for the archive file's symbol table
    and extracts all object files that have definitions for any symbols in the set.

  This algorithm sometimes leads to a counter-intuitive behavior.
  If you give archive files before object files, nothing will happen
  because when the linker visits archives, there is no undefined symbols in the set.
  As a result, no files are extracted from the first archive file,
  and the link is done at that point because the set is empty after it visits one file.

  You can fix the problem by reordering the files,
  but that cannot fix the issue of mutually-dependent archive files.

  Linking mutually-dependent archive files is tricky.
  You may specify the same archive file multiple times to
  let the linker visit it more than once.
  Or, you may use the special command line options, `-(` and `-)`,
  to let the linker loop over the files between the options until
  no new symbols are added to the set.

  Visiting the same archive files multiple makes the linker slower.

  Here is how LLD approached the problem. Instead of memorizing only undefined symbols,
  we program LLD so that it memorizes all symbols.
  When it sees an undefined symbol that can be resolved by extracting an object file
  from an archive file it previously visited, it immediately extracts the file and link it.
  It is doable because LLD does not forget symbols it have seen in archive files.

  We believe that the LLD's way is efficient and easy to justify.

  The semantics of LLD's archive handling is different from the traditional Unix's.
  You can observe it if you carefully craft archive files to exploit it.
  However, in reality, we don't know any program that cannot link
  with our algorithm so far, so we are not too worried about the incompatibility.

Important Data Strcutures
-------------------------

We will describe the key data structures in LLD in this section.
The linker can be understood as the interactions between them.
Once you understand their functions, the code of the linker should look obvious to you.

* SymbolBody

  SymbolBody is a class to represent symbols.
  They are created for symbols in object files or archive files.
  The linker creates linker-defined symbols as well.

  There are basically three types of SymbolBodies: Defined, Undefined, or Lazy.

  - Defined symbols are for all symbols that are considered as "resolved",
    including real defined symbols, COMDAT symbols, common symbols,
    absolute symbols, linker-created symbols, etc.
  - Undefined symbols represent undefined symbols, which need to be replaced by
    Defined symbols by the resolver until the link is complete.
  - Lazy symbols represent symbols we found in archive file headers
    which can turn into Defined if we read archieve members.

* Symbol

  Symbol is a pointer to a SymbolBody. There's only one Symbol for
  each unique symbol name (this uniqueness is guaranteed by the symbol table).
  Because SymbolBodies are created for each file independently,
  there can be many SymbolBodies for the same name.
  Thus, the relationship between Symbols and SymbolBodies is 1:N.
  You can think of Symbols as handles for SymbolBodies.

  The resolver keeps the Symbol's pointer to always point to the "best" SymbolBody.
  Pointer mutation is the resolve operation of this linker.

  SymbolBodies have pointers to their Symbols.
  That means you can always find the best SymbolBody from
  any SymbolBody by following pointers twice.
  This structure makes it very easy and cheap to find replacements for symbols.
  For example, if you have an Undefined SymbolBody, you can find a Defined
  SymbolBody for that symbol just by going to its Symbol and then to SymbolBody,
  assuming the resolver have successfully resolved all undefined symbols.

* SymbolTable

  SymbolTable is basically a hash table from strings to Symbols
  with a logic to resolve symbol conflicts. It resolves conflicts by symbol type.

  - If we add Undefined and Defined symbols, the symbol table will keep the latter.
  - If we add Defined and Lazy symbols, it will keep the former.
  - If we add Lazy and Undefined, it will keep the former,
    but it will also trigger the Lazy symbol to load the archive member
    to actually resolve the symbol.

* Chunk (COFF specific)

  Chunk represents a chunk of data that will occupy space in an output.
  Each regular section becomes a chunk.
  Chunks created for common or BSS symbols are not backed by sections.
  The linker may create chunks to append additional data to an output as well.

  Chunks know about their size, how to copy their data to mmap'ed outputs,
  and how to apply relocations to them.
  Specifically, section-based chunks know how to read relocation tables
  and how to apply them.

* InputSection (ELF specific)

  Since we have less synthesized data for ELF, we don't abstract slices of
  input files as Chunks for ELF. Instead, we directly use the input section
  as an internal data type.

  InputSection knows about their size and how to copy themselves to
  mmap'ed outputs, just like COFF Chunks.

* OutputSection

  OutputSection is a container of InputSections (ELF) or Chunks (COFF).
  An InputSection or Chunk belongs to at most one OutputSection.

There are mainly three actors in this linker.

* InputFile

  InputFile is a superclass of file readers.
  We have a different subclass for each input file type,
  such as regular object file, archive file, etc.
  They are responsible for creating and owning SymbolBodies and
  InputSections/Chunks.

* Writer

  The writer is responsible for writing file headers and InputSections/Chunks to a file.
  It creates OutputSections, put all InputSections/Chunks into them,
  assign unique, non-overlapping addresses and file offsets to them,
  and then write them down to a file.

* Driver

  The linking process is drived by the driver. The driver

  - processes command line options,
  - creates a symbol table,
  - creates an InputFile for each input file and put all symbols in it into the symbol table,
  - checks if there's no remaining undefined symbols,
  - creates a writer,
  - and passes the symbol table to the writer to write the result to a file.

Link-Time Optimization
----------------------

LTO is implemented by handling LLVM bitcode files as object files.
The linker resolves symbols in bitcode files normally. If all symbols
are successfully resolved, it then calls an LLVM libLTO function
with all bitcode files to convert them to one big regular ELF/COFF file.
Finally, the linker replaces bitcode symbols with ELF/COFF symbols,
so that we link the input files as if they were in the native
format from the beginning.

The details are described in this document.
http://llvm.org/docs/LinkTimeOptimization.html

Glossary
--------

* RVA (COFF)

  Short for Relative Virtual Address.

  Windows executables or DLLs are not position-independent; they are
  linked against a fixed address called an image base. RVAs are
  offsets from an image base.

  Default image bases are 0x140000000 for executables and 0x18000000
  for DLLs. For example, when we are creating an executable, we assume
  that the executable will be loaded at address 0x140000000 by the
  loader, so we apply relocations accordingly. Result texts and data
  will contain raw absolute addresses.

* VA

  Short for Virtual Address. For COFF, it is equivalent to RVA + image base.

* Base relocations (COFF)

  Relocation information for the loader. If the loader decides to map
  an executable or a DLL to a different address than their image
  bases, it fixes up binaries using information contained in the base
  relocation table. A base relocation table consists of a list of
  locations containing addresses. The loader adds a difference between
  RVA and actual load address to all locations listed there.

  Note that this run-time relocation mechanism is much simpler than ELF.
  There's no PLT or GOT. Images are relocated as a whole just
  by shifting entire images in memory by some offsets. Although doing
  this breaks text sharing, I think this mechanism is not actually bad
  on today's computers.

* ICF

  Short for Identical COMDAT Folding (COFF) or Identical Code Folding (ELF).

  ICF is an optimization to reduce output size by merging read-only sections
  by not only their names but by their contents. If two read-only sections
  happen to have the same metadata, actual contents and relocations,
  they are merged by ICF. It is known as an effective technique,
  and it usually reduces C++ program's size by a few percent or more.

  Note that this is not entirely sound optimization. C/C++ require
  different functions have different addresses. If a program depends on
  that property, it would fail at runtime.

  On Windows, that's not really an issue because MSVC link.exe enabled
  the optimization by default. As long as your program works
  with the linker's default settings, your program should be safe with ICF.

  On Unix, your program is generally not guaranteed to be safe with ICF,
  although large programs happen to work correctly.
  LLD works fine with ICF for example.