This is available in GNU ld 2.35 and can be seen as a shortcut for multiple
--export-dynamic-symbol, or a --dynamic-list variant without the symbolic intention.
In the long term, this option probably should be preferred over --dynamic-list.
Reviewed By: peter.smith
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107317
This does the same fix as D107237 but for a couple more options,
converting all remaining cases of such options to accept both
forms, for consistency. This fixes building e.g. openldap, which
uses --image-base=<value>.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107253
This option is a subset of -Bsymbolic-functions. It applies to STB_GLOBAL
STT_FUNC definitions.
The address of a vague linkage function (STB_WEAK STT_FUNC, e.g. an inline
function, a template instantiation) seen by a -Bsymbolic-functions linked
shared object may be different from the address seen from outside the shared
object. Such cases are uncommon. (ELF/Mach-O programs may use
`-fvisibility-inlines-hidden` to break such pointer equality. On Windows,
correct dllexport and dllimport are needed to make pointer equality work.
Windows link.exe enables /OPT:ICF by default so different inline functions may
have the same address.)
```
// a.cc -> a.o -> a.so (-Bsymbolic-functions)
inline void f() {}
void *g() { return (void *)&f; }
// b.cc -> b.o -> exe
// The address is different!
inline void f() {}
```
-Bsymbolic-non-weak-functions is a safer (C++ conforming) subset of
-Bsymbolic-functions, which can make such programs work.
Implementations usually emit a vague linkage definition in a COMDAT group. We
could detect the group (with more code) but I feel that we should just check
STB_WEAK for simplicity. A weak definition will thus serve as an escape hatch
for rare cases when users want interposition on definitions.
GNU ld feature request: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27871
Longer write-up: https://maskray.me/blog/2021-05-16-elf-interposition-and-bsymbolic
If Linux distributions migrate to protected non-vague-linkage external linkage
functions by default, the linker option can still be handy because it allows
rapid experiment without recompilation. Protected function addresses currently
have deep issues in GNU ld.
Reviewed By: peter.smith
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102570
ld64 seems to handle common symbols in bitcode rather
bizarrely. They follow entirely different precedence rules from their
non-bitcode counterparts. I initially tried to emulate ld64 in D106597,
but I'm not sure the extra complexity is worth it, especially given that
common symbols are not, well, very common.
This diff accords common bitcode symbols the same precedence as regular
common symbols, just as we treat all other pairs of bitcode and
non-bitcode symbol types. The tests document ld64's behavior in detail,
just in case we want to revisit this.
Reviewed By: #lld-macho, thakis
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107027
This is somewhat of a repeat of D66658 but for sections in PT_TLS
segments. Although such sections don't need to be aligned such that
address and offset are congruent modulo the page size, they do need
to be congruent modulo the segment alignment, otherwise the
whole PT_TLS will be unaligned. We therefore use the normal calculation
to determine the section's address within the PT_LOAD rather than
bailing out early due to being SHT_NOBITS.
Reviewed By: MaskRay
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106987
This is a similar problem to D66658, where we are too aggressive in not
aligning NOBITS sections, and the tests are based on the ones added for
that fix. If a .tbss section is first in a PT_TLS segment (i.e. there is
no .tdata section) then, although it doesn't need to be aligned such
that address and offset are congruent modulo the page size, they do need
to be congruent modulo the segment alignment, otherwise the whole PT_TLS
will be unaligned.
Reviewed By: MaskRay
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106986
This matches ld64's behavior, and makes it easier to fit LLD
into existing build systems.
Reviewed By: #lld-macho, smeenai
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107011
clang may place dynamic initializations for explicitly specialized class
template static data members in comdat.
Such in-comdat SHT_INIT_ARRAY was an abuse but we have to work around it for a while.
Change removeUnusedSyntheticSections() to actually remove empty
SyntheticSections in inputSections.
In addition to doing what removeUnusedSyntheticSections() was meant
to do, this will also make the shuffle-sections tests, which shuffles
inputSections, less sensitive to empty Synthetic Sections that
will not appear in the final image.
Reviewed By: MaskRay
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106427
Change-Id: I589eaf596472161a4395fb658aea0fad73318088
The test accidentally tested something else that makes lld fail
with a different (correct-looking) error that wasn't the one the
test tries to test for. (The test case before this change makes
ld64 hang in an infinite loop.)
Leave the name section in the output when using the --strip-debug
flag. This treats it more like ELF symbol tables, as the name
section has similar uses at runtime (e.g. wasm engines understand
it and it can be used for symbolization at runtime).
Fixes https://github.com/emscripten-core/emscripten/issues/14623
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106728
These symbols are somewhat interesting in that they create non-existing
segments, which as far as I know is the only way to create segments
that don't contain any sections.
Final part of part of PR50760. Like D106629, but for segments instead
of sections. I'm not aware of anything that needs this in practice.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106767
Fixes the output segment name if both -rename_section and
-rename_segment are used and the post-section-rename segment
name is the same as the pre-segment-rename segment name to
match ld64's behavior.
The motivation is that segment$start$ can create section-less segments,
and this makes a corner case in the interaction between segment$start and
-rename_segment in the upcoming segment$start patch.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106766
__heap_base was not aligned. In practice, it will often be aligned
simply because it follows the stack, but when the stack is placed at the
beginning (with the --stack-first option), the __heap_base might be
unaligned. It could even be byte-aligned.
At least wasi-libc appears to expect that __heap_base is aligned:
659ff41456/dlmalloc/src/malloc.c (L5224)
While WebAssembly itself does not appear to require any alignment for
memory accesses, it is sometimes required when sharing a pointer
externally. For example, WASI might expect alignment up to 8:
https://github.com/WebAssembly/WASI/blob/main/phases/snapshot/docs.md#-timestamp-u64
This issue got introduced with the addition of the --stack-first flag:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D46141
I suspect the lack of alignment wasn't intentional here.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106499
With this, libclang_rt.profile_osx.a can be linked, that is coverage
and PGO-instrumented builds should now work with lld.
section$start and section$end symbols can create non-existing sections.
They're also undefined symbols that are only magic if there isn't a
regular symbol with their name, which means the need to be handled
in treatUndefined() instead of just looping over all existing
sections and adding start and end symbols like the ELF port does.
To represent the actual symbols, this uses absolute symbols that
get their value updated once an output section is layed out.
segment$start and segment$end are still missing for now, but they produce a
nicer error message after this patch.
Main part of PR50760.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106629
We lacked a test for bitcode symbol precedence. We assumed that
they followed the same rules as their regular symbol counterparts, but
never had a test to verify that we were matching ld64's behavior. It
turns out that we were largely correct, though we deviate from ld64 when
there are bitcode and non-bitcode symbols of the same name. The test
added in this diff both verifies our behavior and documents the
differences.
Reviewed By: #lld-macho, thakis
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106596
We had a comment that claimed that defined symbols had priority
over common symbols if they occurred in the same archive. In fact, they
appear to have equal precedence. Our implementation already does this,
so I'm just updating the test comment. Also added a few other test
comments along the way for readability.
Reviewed By: #lld-macho, thakis
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106595
In particular, relocations to absolute symbols or literal sections can
be handled in equalsConstant(), since their output addresses will not
change across each iteration of ICF. Offsets and addends can also be
dealt with entirely in equalsConstant(), making the code somewhat easier
to reason about. Only ConcatInputSections need to be handled in
equalsVariable().
LLD-ELF's implementation takes a similar approach.
Although this should make ICF do less work, in practice it seems like
there is no stat sig difference in time taken when linking
chromium_framework.
This refactor is motivated by an upcoming diff which improves ICF's handling of
addends.
Reviewed By: #lld-macho, gkm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106212
I found icf.s a bit hard to work with as it was not possible to
extend any of the functions `_a` ... `_k` to test new relocation /
referent types without modifying every single one of them. Additionally,
their one-letter names were not descriptive (though the comments
helped).
I've renamed all the functions to reflect the feature they are testing,
and shrunk them so that they contain just enough to test that one
feature.
I've also added tests for non-zero addends (via the
`_abs1a_ref_with_addend` and `_defined_ref_with_addend_1` functions).
Reviewed By: #lld-macho, gkm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106211
segment$start$/segment$end$ symbols allow creating segments without
sections, so getting the segment address off the first section
won't work there. Storing the address on the segment is arguably a
bit simpler too.
No behavior change, part of PR50760.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106665
Absolute symbols have a nullptr isec. buildInputSectionPriorities()
would defer isec, causing crashes. Ordering absolute symbols doesn't
make sense, so just ignore them. This seems to match ld64.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106628
Ported from COFF/ELF; test is adapted from
test/COFF/thinlto-archivecollision.ll
LTO expects every bitcode file to have a unique name. If given multiple bitcode
files with the same name, it errors with "Expected at most one ThinLTO module
per bitcode file".
This change incorporates the archive name, to disambiguate members with the
same name in different archives and the offset in archive to disambiguate
members with the same name in the same archive.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106179
This generalizes D70146 (SHT_NOTE) to more reserved sections and makes our rules
more consistent. Now SHF_GROUP is more similar to SHF_LINK_ORDER.
For SHT_INIT_ARRAY/SHT_FINI_ARRAY, the rule will be closer to PE/COFF link.exe.
Previously sanitizers use llvm.global_ctors to make module_ctor a GC
root, which is considered an abuse.
https://groups.google.com/g/generic-abi/c/TpleUEkNoQI
We can squeak through on compatibility issues because compilers otherwise don't
use SHF_GROUP special sections.
In ld64, `-U section$start$FOO$bar` handles `section$start$FOO$bar`
as a regular `section$start` symbol, that is section$start processing
happens before -U processing.
Likely, nobody uses that in practice so it doesn't seem very important
to be compatible with this, but it also moves the -U handling code next
to the `-undefined dynamic_lookup` handling code, which is nice because
they do the same thing. And, in fact, this did identify a bug in a corner
case in the intersection of `-undefined dynamic_lookup` and dead-stripping
(fix for that in D106565).
Vaguely related to PR50760.
No interesting behavior change.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106566
We lost the `used` bit on the Undefined when we replaced it with a DylibSymbol
in treatUndefined().
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106565
treatUndefinedSymbol() was previously called before gatherInputSections()
and markLive() for these special symbols, but after them for normal
undefineds.
For PR50760, treatUndefinedSymbol() will have to potentially create
sections, so it's good to move treatUndefinedSymbol() for special
undefineds later, so that it can assume that gatherInputSections()
and markLive() has already been called always.
No intended behavior change, but part of PR50760 (and covered in
tests in the patch for the full feature).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106552
Fangrui Song