See http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-April/140549.html
For the record, GNU ld changed to 64k max page size in 2014
https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commit;h=7572ca8989ead4c3425a1500bc241eaaeffa2c89
"[RFC] ld/ARM: Increase maximum page size to 64kB"
Android driver forced 4k page size in AArch64 (D55029) and ARM (D77746).
A binary linked with max-page-size=4096 does not run on a system with a
higher page size configured. There are some systems out there that do
this and it leads to the binary getting `Killed!` by the kernel.
In the non-linker-script cases, when linked with -z noseparate-code
(default), the max-page-size increase should not cause any size
difference. There may be some VMA usage differences, though.
Reviewed By: psmith, MaskRay
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D77330
The new behavior matches GNU objdump. A pair of angle brackets makes tests slightly easier.
`.foo:` is not unique and thus cannot be used in a `CHECK-LABEL:` directive.
Without `-LABEL`, the CHECK line can match the `Disassembly of section`
line and causes the next `CHECK-NEXT:` to fail.
```
Disassembly of section .foo:
0000000000001634 .foo:
```
Bdragon: <> has metalinguistic connotation. it just "feels right"
Reviewed By: rupprecht
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D75713
Port the D64906 technique to ARM. It deletes 3 alignments at
PT_LOAD boundaries for the default case: the size of an arm binary
decreases by at most 12kb.
Reviewed By: grimar
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66749
llvm-svn: 370049
When REQUIRES: ARM is used the test is skipped as ARM is not recognized.
Change to REQUIRES: arm so that it is run. This required updating one of the
tests due to changes in expected output.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54786
llvm-svn: 347388
Add two test cases to improve the code coverage of ThunkSection creation
when there are no existing ThunkSections in range. There are two test
cases, one where a new section can be created and another to trigger the
"InputSection too large for range extension thunk" error message. A recent
code coverage report showed that this section of code wasn't covered by a
test case.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46261
llvm-svn: 331751
Fangrui Song