This generalizes the old heuristic placing SHT_DYNSYM SHT_DYNSTR first in the readonly SHF_ALLOC segment.
Reviewers: espindola
Subscribers: emaste, arichardson, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48406
llvm-svn: 335674
Summary:
Currently when --no-rosegment is specified or a linker script with SECTIONS command is used,
.rodata (A) .text (AX) are assigned the same rank and .rodata may be placed after .text .
This increases the gap between .text and .bss and can cause pc-relative relocation overflow (e.g. gcc crtbegin.o crtbegin.S have R_X86_64_PC32 relocation from .text to .bss).
This patch makes SingleRoRx affect only segment layout, not section layout. As a consequence, .rodata will be placed before .text regardless of SingleRoRx.
Reviewers: espindola, ruiu, grimar, echristo, javed.absar
Subscribers: emaste, arichardson, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48405
llvm-svn: 335627
This CL places .dynsym and .dynstr at the beginning of SHF_ALLOC
sections. We do this to mitigate the possibility that huge .dynsym and
.dynstr sections placed between ro-data and text sections cause
relocation overflow.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45788
llvm-svn: 332374
This CL is to mitigate R_X86_64_PC32 relocation overflow problems for huge binaries that has near 4G allocated sections.
By examining those binaries, there're 2 issues contributes to the problem:
1). huge ".dynsym" and ".dynstr" stands in the way between .rodata and .text
2). _init_array_start/end are placed at 0 if no ".init_array" presents, this causes .text relocation against them become more prone to overflow.
This CL addresses 1st problem (the 2nd will be addressed in another CL.) by assigning a smaller sortrank to .dynsym and .dynstr thus they no longer stand in between.
llvm-svn: 332038
Its PR34712,
GNU linkers recently changed default values to "both" of "sysv".
Patch do the same for all targets except MIPS, where .gnu.hash
section is not yet supported.
Code suggested by Rui Ueyama.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38407
llvm-svn: 315051
We were implicitly creating space for the headers. That is not the
behaviour of bfd, which requires the script to use SIZEOF_HEADERS. The
difference is important for scripts that don't use SIZEOF_HEADERS and
expect the first section to be at 0.
llvm-svn: 282818
Since they end up going on the same PT_LOAD, there is no reason to
sort them. This matches bfd's behaviour and is user visible in the
placement of orphan sections.
llvm-svn: 282799
If there is not sufficient address space, just give up and don't put
the header in the PT_LOAD.
This matches bfd behaviour and I found at least one script that
depends on having a section at address 0.
llvm-svn: 282750
Fangrui Song