When parsing instructions, we need to provide the subtarget to detect when the subtarget changes due to options as they are parsed.
This affects the fragment the label will be placed in.
Details
- Reviewers
eli.friedman
Diff Detail
Event Timeline
Yes, something very similar, thank you. I just added an additional EmitLabel, with a default implementation which just called the original EmitLabel, and override it for MCELFStreamer. If this patch compiles for all targets though I don't see any problem with it.
Hi Lewis, yes it is possible to reduce the code changes. I will push an update.
The concern I have is that for pseudo instructions it was enough to change RISCVAsmParser.cpp to fix the problem. But for the expanded instructions I have to modify AsmParser.cpp.
So maybe instead of adding a new EmitLabel we change the current api.
I don't understand why it necessary to ensure the label is attached to the "correct" fragment; it's still pointing to the same address either way. Could you try a little harder in RISCVMCExpr::getPCRelHiFixup() to find the symbol? (Given an MCFragment, you can call getPrevNode() to get the previous MCFragment.)
I guess the difficulty there is that you wouldn't know which fragment the symbol offset (AUIPCSymbol->getOffset()) relates to. So you might end up finding a symbol with a matching offset in the current fragment even though you should be looking in the previous fragment, or vice-versa.
Could you re-title the revision to start with [RISCV] and preferably [MC]? As it is, it may not be seen by all the relevant people.
Hi Eli,
The pair of instructions constraint is that the instruction (or instructions) with the LO12 relocation label points to a valid HI20 relocation which in turn points to the symbol:
At label: R_RISCV_PCREL_HI20 relocation entry ⟶ symbol
R_RISCV_PCREL_LO12_I relocation entry ⟶ label
See https://github.com/riscv/riscv-elf-psabi-doc/blob/master/riscv-elf.md#relocations
Let us know if you have a suggestion on how to do this matching some other way.
I guess the difficulty there is that you wouldn't know which fragment the symbol offset (AUIPCSymbol->getOffset()) relates to.
Either the label is in the same fragment as the fixup, so the current code works, or the label points to the end of a fragment and the fixup is at offset zero in the next fragment. Otherwise, they can't match because there's data in between the label and the fixup. (I guess it's a little more complicated if you consider the possibility of zero-size fragments, but that doesn't make it a lot more complicated.)
I'm concerned the approach in current patch can't be generalized to handle all cases, for example:
.option push .option norelax nop 2: .option pop auipc a1, %pcrel_hi(another_symbol) addi a1, a1, %pcrel_lo(2b)
include/llvm/MC/MCStreamer.h | ||
---|---|---|
444 | If we're going to do this, we should give this a better name... maybe something like "EmitLabelInNextFragment" or something like that, to indicate that it's actually doing something unusual. |
Posted https://reviews.llvm.org/D58943, which implements my proposal. Hopefully it makes sense.
Hi Eli, this current patch as it is fails for the test case you highlighted. Thanks for clarifying and pushing an alternative solution.
If we're going to do this, we should give this a better name... maybe something like "EmitLabelInNextFragment" or something like that, to indicate that it's actually doing something unusual.