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/ppc64-reloc-addr.s

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

26 lines
1.1 KiB
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: ppc
# RUN: llvm-mc -filetype=obj -triple=powerpc64le %s -o %t.o
# RUN: llvm-mc -filetype=obj -triple=powerpc64le %S/Inputs/abs255.s -o %t255.o
# RUN: llvm-mc -filetype=obj -triple=powerpc64le %S/Inputs/abs256.s -o %t256.o
# RUN: llvm-mc -filetype=obj -triple=powerpc64le %S/Inputs/abs257.s -o %t257.o
# RUN: ld.lld %t.o %t256.o -o %t
# RUN: llvm-readelf -x .data %t | FileCheck %s
# CHECK: 0x{{[0-9a-f]+}} ffff0080 ffffffff 00000080
# RUN: not ld.lld %t.o %t255.o -o /dev/null 2>&1 | 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_PPC64_ADDR16 out of range: -32769 is not in [-32768, 65535]; references foo
# OVERFLOW1: relocation R_PPC64_ADDR32 out of range: -2147483649 is not in [-2147483648, 4294967295]; references foo
[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 %t257.o -o /dev/null 2>&1 | 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_PPC64_ADDR16 out of range: 65536 is not in [-32768, 65535]; references foo
# OVERFLOW2: relocation R_PPC64_ADDR32 out of range: 4294967296 is not in [-2147483648, 4294967295]; references foo
[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
.globl _start
_start:
.data
.word foo + 0xfeff
.word foo - 0x8100
.long foo + 0xfffffeff
.long foo - 0x80000100