maxjhandsome
/
llvm-project
forked from OSchip/llvm-project
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Releases Wiki Activity
llvm-project/lld/test/ELF/i386-reloc-8.s

Ignoring revisions in .git-blame-ignore-revs. Click here to bypass and see the normal blame view.

21 lines
667 B
ArmAsm
Raw Normal View History

[ELF][PPC][X86] Use [-2**(n-1), 2**n) to check overflows for R_PPC_ADDR16, R_PPC64_ADDR{16,32}, R_X86_64_{8,16} Similar to R_AARCH64_ABS32, R_PPC64_ADDR32 can represent either a signed value or unsigned value, thus we should use `[-2**(n-1), 2**n)` instead of `[-2**(n-1), 2**(n-1))` to check overflows. The issue manifests as a bogus linker error when linking the powerpc64le Linux kernel. The new behavior is compatible with ld.bfd's complain_overflow_bitfield. The upper bound of the error message is not correct. Fix it as well. The changes to R_PPC_ADDR16, R_PPC64_ADDR16, R_X86_64_8 and R_X86_64_16 are similar. Reviewed By: ruiu Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63690 llvm-svn: 364164
2019-06-24 13:37:20 +08:00
# REQUIRES: x86
# RUN: llvm-mc -filetype=obj -triple=i386 %s -o %t.o
Fix checks for R_386_8 and R_386_16. Results created by these relocations are expected to be zero extended at runtime. llvm-svn: 294988
2017-02-14 05:29:56 +08:00
[ELF][PPC][X86] Use [-2**(n-1), 2**n) to check overflows for R_PPC_ADDR16, R_PPC64_ADDR{16,32}, R_X86_64_{8,16} Similar to R_AARCH64_ABS32, R_PPC64_ADDR32 can represent either a signed value or unsigned value, thus we should use `[-2**(n-1), 2**n)` instead of `[-2**(n-1), 2**(n-1))` to check overflows. The issue manifests as a bogus linker error when linking the powerpc64le Linux kernel. The new behavior is compatible with ld.bfd's complain_overflow_bitfield. The upper bound of the error message is not correct. Fix it as well. The changes to R_PPC_ADDR16, R_PPC64_ADDR16, R_X86_64_8 and R_X86_64_16 are similar. Reviewed By: ruiu Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63690 llvm-svn: 364164
2019-06-24 13:37:20 +08:00
# RUN: ld.lld %t.o --defsym=a=0 --defsym=b=128 -o %t
# RUN: llvm-readelf -x .text %t | FileCheck %s
# CHECK: b480b7ff
Fix checks for R_386_8 and R_386_16. Results created by these relocations are expected to be zero extended at runtime. llvm-svn: 294988
2017-02-14 05:29:56 +08:00
[ELF][PPC][X86] Use [-2**(n-1), 2**n) to check overflows for R_PPC_ADDR16, R_PPC64_ADDR{16,32}, R_X86_64_{8,16} Similar to R_AARCH64_ABS32, R_PPC64_ADDR32 can represent either a signed value or unsigned value, thus we should use `[-2**(n-1), 2**n)` instead of `[-2**(n-1), 2**(n-1))` to check overflows. The issue manifests as a bogus linker error when linking the powerpc64le Linux kernel. The new behavior is compatible with ld.bfd's complain_overflow_bitfield. The upper bound of the error message is not correct. Fix it as well. The changes to R_PPC_ADDR16, R_PPC64_ADDR16, R_X86_64_8 and R_X86_64_16 are similar. Reviewed By: ruiu Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63690 llvm-svn: 364164
2019-06-24 13:37:20 +08:00
# RUN: not ld.lld %t.o --defsym=a=-1 --defsym=b=0 -o /dev/null 2>&1 | \
# RUN: FileCheck --check-prefix=OVERFLOW1 %s
[ELF] Mention symbol name in reportRangeError() For an out-of-range relocation referencing a non-local symbol, report the symbol name and the object file that defines the symbol. As an example: ``` t.o:(function func: .text.func+0x3): relocation R_X86_64_32S out of range: -281474974609120 is not in [-2147483648, 2147483647] ``` => ``` t.o:(function func: .text.func+0x3): relocation R_X86_64_32S out of range: -281474974609120 is not in [-2147483648, 2147483647]; references func >>> defined in t1.o ``` Reviewed By: grimar Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73518
2020-01-28 09:35:06 +08:00
# OVERFLOW1: relocation R_386_8 out of range: -129 is not in [-128, 255]; references a
Fix checks for R_386_8 and R_386_16. Results created by these relocations are expected to be zero extended at runtime. llvm-svn: 294988
2017-02-14 05:29:56 +08:00
[ELF][PPC][X86] Use [-2**(n-1), 2**n) to check overflows for R_PPC_ADDR16, R_PPC64_ADDR{16,32}, R_X86_64_{8,16} Similar to R_AARCH64_ABS32, R_PPC64_ADDR32 can represent either a signed value or unsigned value, thus we should use `[-2**(n-1), 2**n)` instead of `[-2**(n-1), 2**(n-1))` to check overflows. The issue manifests as a bogus linker error when linking the powerpc64le Linux kernel. The new behavior is compatible with ld.bfd's complain_overflow_bitfield. The upper bound of the error message is not correct. Fix it as well. The changes to R_PPC_ADDR16, R_PPC64_ADDR16, R_X86_64_8 and R_X86_64_16 are similar. Reviewed By: ruiu Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63690 llvm-svn: 364164
2019-06-24 13:37:20 +08:00
# RUN: not ld.lld %t.o --defsym=a=0 --defsym=b=129 -o /dev/null 2>&1 | \
# RUN: FileCheck --check-prefix=OVERFLOW2 %s
[ELF] Mention symbol name in reportRangeError() For an out-of-range relocation referencing a non-local symbol, report the symbol name and the object file that defines the symbol. As an example: ``` t.o:(function func: .text.func+0x3): relocation R_X86_64_32S out of range: -281474974609120 is not in [-2147483648, 2147483647] ``` => ``` t.o:(function func: .text.func+0x3): relocation R_X86_64_32S out of range: -281474974609120 is not in [-2147483648, 2147483647]; references func >>> defined in t1.o ``` Reviewed By: grimar Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73518
2020-01-28 09:35:06 +08:00
# OVERFLOW2: relocation R_386_8 out of range: 256 is not in [-128, 255]; references b
Fix checks for R_386_8 and R_386_16. Results created by these relocations are expected to be zero extended at runtime. llvm-svn: 294988
2017-02-14 05:29:56 +08:00
[ELF][PPC][X86] Use [-2**(n-1), 2**n) to check overflows for R_PPC_ADDR16, R_PPC64_ADDR{16,32}, R_X86_64_{8,16} Similar to R_AARCH64_ABS32, R_PPC64_ADDR32 can represent either a signed value or unsigned value, thus we should use `[-2**(n-1), 2**n)` instead of `[-2**(n-1), 2**(n-1))` to check overflows. The issue manifests as a bogus linker error when linking the powerpc64le Linux kernel. The new behavior is compatible with ld.bfd's complain_overflow_bitfield. The upper bound of the error message is not correct. Fix it as well. The changes to R_PPC_ADDR16, R_PPC64_ADDR16, R_X86_64_8 and R_X86_64_16 are similar. Reviewed By: ruiu Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63690 llvm-svn: 364164
2019-06-24 13:37:20 +08:00
.code16
.globl _start
_start:
movb $a-128, %ah
movb $b+127, %bh