Updated formatting, removed the 2 new RelExprs since they aren't needed, expanded comments on the relaxation specifics.

Other then the 1 comment this LGTM.

In D48090#1130092, @ruiu wrote:

Can you give me a pointer to the spec describing these relaxations?

LGTM

committed in https://reviews.llvm.org/rLLD334465

we have already have a patch that adds support for nearly all the DTPREL relocations here: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47596. Its been sitting for a while with-out a review though, rather then submit a new patch that adds support for only a few of the local-dynamic relocations I would appreciate a review on that so we can commit support for all at once.

ping

Updated tests to produce the missing dtprel/tprel relocation types.

This LGTM, but I think someone with more lld experience should Ok it as well.

Fixed extra space.

In D47379#1113896, @grimar wrote:

New naming is confusing IMO. We had R_GOTONLY_PC_FROM_END, R_GOT_FROM_END and R_GOTREL_FROM_END.
Since names contains "GOT" it is clear that "FROM_END" says about the end of GOT.

But R_TLSGD_FROM_END is different made me think about the end of TLS first of all.

commited in https://reviews.llvm.org/rL333200

In D47325#1111542, @ruiu wrote:

Generally looking good, it needs a bit more time to understand the test though.

Renamed the test and fixed several places where I used global-dynamic instead of`general-dynamic`.

Minor nit: the instructions that use this class are either Z23Form_7 ( xsrqpxp) or Z23Form_8 (xsrqpi, xsrqpix). The structure is correct but I think we should stick with the naming that matches the instruction descriptions in the ISA.

LGTM.

Addressed review comments.

Updated based on review comments.

Hi Rui, thanks for the review. I think I've addressed all your comments.

Rebased to pick up Zaaras patch that removed V1 abi support and addressed review comments.

In D46076#1083405, @echristo wrote:

This LGTM FWIW. (Acking to have it pop back up in people's queues).

In D45833#1072806, @ruiu wrote:

I wonder if you really need to merge .toc into .got. If I understand your description correctly, it doesn't matter whether they are merged or not as long as they are close enough. So I'm wondering if you can just manipulate the section output order so that .toc and .got are output next to each other.

Moved the lazy resolver stubs to the .plt section, and renamed the ,plt and .got.plt sections.

Rebased to top of trunk.

I've moved the lazy resolver stubs to .plt section as suggested and will hopefully post the updated patch shortly. Everything seems to be working as expected. I had to re implement the plt call-stubs as thunks before I could do that move, but that was something that was going to have to be done eventually anyways.

It would be nice to have a test similar to ppc64-error-toc-restore.s that makes sure we emit the error for a missing nop on a tail call as well.

In D45642#1069490, @espindola wrote:

In D45642#1069073, @sfertile wrote:

In D45642#1068980, @espindola wrote:

This is a plt by another name, no?

Do you know why it is defined to have another name?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'plt' here. In this abi the .plt section is just the array of addresses of external functions that the dynamic linker fills out at runtime. The .glink section holds the lazy resolution stubs which will setup the environment for the dynamic linker to do so. Then there are also stubs for calling the external functions by loading their address out of the .plt. Am I right to assume by 'plt' you mean a combination of lazy resolver and the call stub?

The question is why there is such a difference of terminology. At least of x86_64/x86/aarch64 the the array of addresses is the .got.plt section and the .plt section is what has the stubs. Just like .glink it has a special first entry. That is:

pp64 v2 | others
.glink | .plt
.plt | .got.plt

In D45642#1068980, @espindola wrote:

This is a plt by another name, no?

Do you know why it is defined to have another name?

ping

ping