Can I go ahead with this version as a starting point?

• fix warnings from mandoc -Tlint and/or igor
• remove options that should not be listed

This is fine for me (from FreeBSD's perspective), but I suspect some people (on operating systems without ifuncs in libc) may be surprised by having a(n empty) .rela.plt in all of their statically linked binaries.

I have an interim copy in FreeBSD and am updating it based on the feedback here; I'll update this review shortly.

Additional comment that wasn't submitted while reviews.llvm.org was down on Friday: I started working on this as it's needed for us to switch from GNU objdump to llvm-objdump in FreeBSD (FreeBSD PR229046).

Review feedback

I think this is reasonable.

Perhaps someone else can review?

In D54864#1307053, @Higuoxing wrote:

lgtm, but seems that some hidden/alias options are not listed here (I could help add them). I am not expert in this area, so I will leave the decision to @kristina

Confirmed this fixes my bug.

I think that the inconsistency of linkers behavior shown above shows that LLD behavior is not incorrect. It is different. But we never tried to be fully bug compatible with bfd/gold. First of all the problem is caused by a weak assumption in the linker script, which assumes that orphans are placed at the particular place before the assignment command, and my feeling it should be fixed.

I backported the change to lld 6.0 currently in FreeBSD-HEAD and it has the expected behaviour, but for my test case I think sh_info should reference .got.plt not .plt - note the address marked with ######## below.

This change looks good to me; testing it out in the FreeBSD tree now.

This change LGTM.

Looks good to me

For SHT_REL and SHT_RELA, sh_link references the associated symbol table and sh_info the "section to which the relocation applies."

I don't think you can fix the issue by recompiling it without -fPIC

I would think a fix would be compiling with -fPIC.

Maybe "available for some architectures in at least..."? Or maybe we shouldn't bother trying to list versions, and mention it is dependent on CPU arch, linker, and rtld?

I am sure IFUNC+DT_TEXTREL does not affect FreeBSD, but OpenBSD can be affected. Many other systems (including musl) may not support IFUNC at all.

Probably. We'll need this information though I think. Otherwise, how will we find that it is safe to remove the flag?

The benefit from this that we can track and update the status of the fix and even maybe provide info about the known distributions affected/fixed on the page what can be helpful for removing this flag at some longer-term point.

I'm using this change: https://github.com/emaste/freebsd/commit/1c3deab6d518feb1a7e88de5b342a139e4022a21

The FreeBSD build bot was down for a little over a week due to an IP address issue, but is back now: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/lldb-amd64-ninja-freebsd11

In D50297#1236972, @ruiu wrote:

In theory this change shouldn't affect the amount of memory used by an application

Agreed - when I submitted it I thought it might be uncommon but worth supporting, but the evidence Mark found suggests it is a single-purpose feature that is not relevant to the platforms lld supports.

Thanks for finding that Mark - based on that IMO this feature is not worth supporting.

keep flags in order

Reuse existing FLAGS: test

See also https://reviews.freebsd.org/D17172 for a lld 6 version intended for commit to FreeBSD's in-tree lld.

@ruiu what do you suggest as the next step here?

LGTM. I made the same change in FreeBSD r336745.

FWIW I don't have a strong opinion on | vs newline to separate aliases, but if we are going to go with the newline -compact and .Pp approach I'd suggest making that change as a separate commit first so that the actual content changes here are easier to see/review.

For reference I had a discussion on markup for option aliases with Ingo Schwarze and he wrote:

In D41821#1152337, @atanasyan wrote:

I'm going to implement both parts of the plan.

In D31528#1114868, @atanasyan wrote:

Ping?

@ruiu could I use a post-commit review option in that case?

In D46690#1094394, @grimar wrote:

After the second look, I think it is ok to add check here that we still keep non-a section and keep its SHT_NOTE flag for safety though. I'll update the patch.

note-noalloc2.s is close to my original test, I think that's reasonable.

1. what is the content of .debug-ghc-link-info? If the section contains an optional, human-readable string, they might have just used .comment instead.

Committed to FreeBSD in r333401

Yeah, @espindola was added by a Herald rule.

@arichardson @dim I'm also looking for approval to commit the change to FreeBSD (perhaps in advance of committing upstream), with a bump of the FreeBSD-specific version to LLD_REVISION_STRING "326565-1200002" - I might as well solicit that via this review.

Nice :)

Do we know why pthread_{get,set}specific fails now? And would it make sense to use tls more broadly (not just on FreeBSD)?

Happy belated birthday Multi-GOT patch

LGTM

In D43751#1031350, @mgorny wrote:

Thanks for the review. As for the -Wl,-z,origin part, I'd rather leave that alone unless we have a clear indication that either it is not necessary for any of the supported FreeBSD and DragonFly BSD versions, or that it can be passed unconditionally without breaking any of the supported systems (and which linkers accept it).

LGTM for FreeBSD

In D43751#1030947, @krytarowski wrote:

ld(1) might accept -z origin, but why do we want it for other OSes? I don't see it used in the NetBSD dynamic ELF loader. DF_ORIGIN is just defined but not used by anything.

In D43751#1027263, @krytarowski wrote:

Uconditionally for all Unices? I don't think so.

LGTM from the FreeBSD perspective