This patch intends to provide relocation support for the expression contains two unpaired relocatable terms with opposite signs.
Details
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rG LLVM Github Monorepo
Event Timeline
llvm/lib/MC/XCOFFObjectWriter.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
421 | what about use const auto ? |
llvm/lib/MC/XCOFFObjectWriter.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
421 | I'm guessing the reason you mention about "const auto" is that maybe it would help when we have 64 bit. |
llvm/lib/MC/XCOFFObjectWriter.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
462 | I have question on the "SymbolA - SymbolB + imm64" for example: in the assembly of the test case .csect .text[PR] .foo: # %bb.0: # %entry li 4, 0 cmplwi 3, 3 stw 3, -8(1) stw 4, -12(1) bgt 0, LBB0_5 # %bb.1: # %entry lwz 4, LC0(2) slwi 3, 3, 2 lwzx 3, 3, 4 add 3, 3, 4 mtctr 3 bctr LBB0_2: # %sw.bb1 li 3, 1 b LBB0_6 ....... ........ .csect .rodata[RO] .align 2 .LJTI0_0: (symb) .long LBB0_2-.LJTI0_0 the address of LBB0_2 is 44 (0x2C) . the value in the 58: ff ff ff d4 .long 0xffffffd4 (-0x2C) 58: R_POS .text 58: R_NEG .rodata-0x58 the jump address I think the content of in the address of the first bytes .csect .rodata[RO] after link in should be | |
463 | what about use XCOFF::RelocationType type instead of uint8_t ? |
llvm/lib/MC/XCOFFObjectWriter.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
462 | please ignore above question. I got it . the value in the address 0x58 is .text+imm64-.rodata. |
llvm/lib/MC/XCOFFObjectWriter.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
463 | At this stage, we are already lowering the high level representation to the actual binary level representation. XCOFFRelocation uses uint8_t to store the XCOFF::RelocationType, so I prefer to matches them here. |
llvm/lib/MC/XCOFFObjectWriter.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
400 | On the assembly path, I don't see a label for function descriptor definitions or for common definitions. | |
401 | Typo: s/containting/containing/; | |
406 | If this is not being changed, then—given the size of the function—using const MCSymbol *const SymA could help readability. |
llvm/lib/MC/XCOFFObjectWriter.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
400 | We don't have a label for function descriptor definitions or common definitions. So those symbols won't even get here. Could you elaborate your concern? |
llvm/lib/MC/XCOFFObjectWriter.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
400 | Discussed offline, updated the misleading comments. |
LGTM with a request for more input.
llvm/test/CodeGen/PowerPC/aix-xcoff-reloc-symb.ll | ||
---|---|---|
38 ↗ | (On Diff #256666) | I'd like a second opinion over whether this is too high-level. |
llvm/test/CodeGen/PowerPC/aix-xcoff-reloc-symb.ll | ||
---|---|---|
38 ↗ | (On Diff #256666) | I see your concern. The better way to write the test is through assembly. As you can easly write assembly like |
llvm/test/CodeGen/PowerPC/aix-xcoff-reloc-symb.mir | ||
---|---|---|
51 | I will subsitute index in this line and line 68, so that we don't use hardcoded value. |
llvm/test/CodeGen/PowerPC/aix-xcoff-reloc-symb.mir | ||
---|---|---|
25 | I'm a bit disturbed by the weirdness of this function. I suggest the following. --- name: foo alignment: 16 tracksRegLiveness: true jumpTable: kind: label-difference32 entries: - id: 0 blocks: [ '%bb.0' ] body: | bb.0: successors: %bb.0(0x20000000) liveins: $r2 renamable $r3 = LWZtoc %jump-table.0, $r2 :: (load 4 from got) BLR implicit $lr, implicit $rm, implicit killed $r3 ... |
llvm/test/CodeGen/PowerPC/aix-xcoff-reloc-symb.mir | ||
---|---|---|
25 | Thanks. It is much better. |
On the assembly path, I don't see a label for function descriptor definitions or for common definitions.