The canonical term is "extract" (GNU ld documentation, Solaris's `-z *extract`
options). Avoid inventing a term and match --why-extract. (ld64 prefers "load"
but the word is overloaded too much)
Mostly MFC, except for --help messages and the header row in
--print-archive-stats output.
BaseCommand was picked when PHDRS/INSERT/etc were not implemented. Rename it to
SectionCommand to match `sectionCommands` and make it clear that the commands
are used in SECTIONS (except a special case for SymbolAssignment).
Also, improve naming of some BaseCommand variables (base -> cmd).
This partially reverts r315409: the description applies to LinkerScript, but not
to OutputSection.
The name "sectionCommands" is used in both LinkerScript::sectionCommands and
OutputSection::sectionCommands, which may lead to confusion.
"commands" in OutputSection has no ambiguity because there are no other types
of commands.
The attribute 'r' allows (or disallows for the negative case) read-only
sections, i.e. ones without the SHF_WRITE flag, to be assigned to the
memory region. Before the patch, lld could put a section in the wrong
region or fail with "error: no memory region specified for section".
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113771
The current TLSDESC optimization code assumes:
```
leaq x@tlsdesc(%rip), %rax
call *x@tlscall(%rax) # adjacent
```
From https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/-/issues/5665 , it seems that the
two instructions may not be adjacent in GCC 10's output:
```
leaq x@tlsdesc(%rip), %rax
something else
call *x@tlscall(%rax)
```
This patch supports the case. While here, support non-RAX registers for
R_X86_64_GOTPC32_TLSDESC, in case the compiler generates inefficient:
```
leaq x@tlsdesc(%rip), %rcx # or %rdx, %rbx, %rdi, ...
movq %rcx, %rax
call *x@tlscall(%rax) # GNU ld/gold error for non-RAX
```
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D114416
Fix a null pointer dereference when .got.plt is discarded.
This also adds a test for discarding `.plt`.
Reviewed By: ikudrin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D114180
When aligning the start address of an output section introduces a gap between the current dot pointer
and the new aligned address, we were already properly expanding the memory region, if available.
D74286 introduced a new behavior to also align the LMA address if an LMA region is specified.
However, this did not expand the corresponding LMA region.
Now, we also expand the LMA region if it is set.
This fixes PR52510.
Reviewed By: MaskRay
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D114166
Non-allocatable sections are not part of the memory image of the
program, so there is no need to find memory regions for them either
matching properties or handling explicit assignments. The early test
and return help to simplify LinkerScript::findMemoryRegion() a bit.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113768
This brings back the original version of D81359.
I have found several use cases now.
* Unlike GNU ld, LLD's relocation processing is one pass. If we decide to
optimize(relax) R_X86_64_{,REX_}GOTPCRELX, we will suppress GOT generation and
cannot undo the decision later. Optimizing R_X86_64_REX_GOTPCRELX can usually
make it easy to hit `relocation R_X86_64_REX_GOTPCRELX out of range` because
the distance to GOT is usually shorter. Without --no-relax, the user has to
recompile with `-Wa,-mrelax-relocations=no`.
* The option would help during my investigationg of the root cause of https://git.kernel.org/linus/09e43968db40c33a73e9ddbfd937f46d5c334924
* There is need for relaxation for AArch64 & RISC-V. Implementing this for
x86-64 improves consistency with little target-specific cost (two-line
X86_64.cpp change).
Reviewed By: alexander-shaposhnikov
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113615
This change implements support for R_ARM_THM_JUMP8 relocation in
addition to R_ARM_THM_JUMP11 which is already supported by LLD.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D21225
An orphan section should be placed in the same memory region as its
anchor section if the latter specifies the memory region explicitly.
If there is no explicit assignment for the anchor section in the linker
script, its memory region is selected by matching attributes, and the
same should be done for the orphan section.
Before the patch, some scripts that were handled smoothly in GNU ld
caused an "error: no memory region specified for section" in lld.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112925
PR52408 reported an sh_info=0 instance. I have seen sh_info=0
independently before.
sh_info>=num_sections is probably very rare. Just use one diagnostic for
the two types of errors.
Delete invalid-relocations.test which is covered by invalid/bad-reloc-target.test
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113466
This diff makes several amendments to the local file caching mechanism
which was migrated from ThinLTO to Support in
rGe678c51177102845c93529d457b020f969125373 in response to follow-up
discussion on that commit.
Patch By: noajshu
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113080
This reverts commit 5cbec88cbf.
Vitaly said that 2faac77f26 actually works.
Sanitizer's armv7-linux-androideabi24 configuration has other issues which haven't been identified yet, but that's unrelated to the empty symbol name issue.
The "symbol 'foo' has no type" diagnostic tries to inform that copy
relocation/canonical PLT entry cannot be used, but the diagnostic is often
incorrect and confusing.
The hint does not pull its weight:
* adding -Wl,-z,notext often won't work (relocation types other than `symbolRel`, e.g. `R_AARCH64_LDST32_ABS_LO12_NC`)
* for pure (no assembly) C/C++ projects, the "-fPIC" hint is sufficient
Many diagnostics use `getErrorPlace` or `getErrorLocation` to report a location.
In the presence of line table debug information, `getErrorPlace` uses a source
file location and ignores the object file location. However, the object file
location is sometimes more useful.
This patch changes "undefined symbol" and "out of range" diagnostics to report
both object/source file locations. Other diagnostics can use similar format if
needed.
The key idea is to let `InputSectionBase::getLocation` report the object file
location and use `getSrcMsg` for source file/line information. `getSrcMsg`
doesn't leverage `STT_FILE` information yet, but I think the temporary lack of
the functionality is ok.
For the ARM "branch and link relocation" diagnostic, I arbitrarily place the
source file location at the end of the line. The diagnostic is not very common
so its formatting doesn't need to be pretty.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112518
For `InputSection` `.foo`, its `InputBaseSection::{areRelocsRela,firstRelocation,numRelocation}` basically
encode the information of `.rel[a].foo`. However, one uint32_t (the relocation section index)
suffices. See the implementation of `relsOrRelas`.
This change decreases sizeof(InputSection) from 184 to 176 on 64-bit Linux.
The maximum resident set size linking a large application (1.2G output) decreases by 0.39%.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112513
The hack is irrelevant for two reasons:
* binutils 2.24 is quite old and cannot handle R_X86_64_REX_GOTPCRELX from 2016 onwards anyway
* `canMergeToProgbits` allows combining SHT_INIT_ARRAY/SHT_FINI_ARRAY into SHT_PROGBITS
For a function call (using the default `-fplt`), GCC `-mcmodel=large` generates an assembly modifier which
leads to an R_X86_64_PLTOFF64 relocation. In real world,
http://git.ageinghacker.net/jitter (used by GNU poke) uses `-mcmodel=large`.
R_X86_64_PLTOFF64's formula is (if preemptible) `L - GOT + A` or (if non-preemptible) `S - GOT + A`
where `GOT` is (confusingly) the address of `.got.plt`
Reviewed By: peter.smith
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112386
Taken from Chih-Mao Chen's D100835.
RelExpr has 64 bits now and needs the extension to support new members
(`R_PLT_GOTPLT` for `R_X86_64_PLTOFF64` support).
Note: RelExpr needs to have at least a member >=64 to prevent
-Wtautological-constant-out-of-range-compare for `if (expr >= 64)`.
Reviewed By: arichardson, peter.smith
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112385
Fangrui Song