[all-commits] [llvm/llvm-project] 41449c: [RISCV] Fix evaluation of %pcrel_lo

[Roger Ferrer Ibáñez via All-commits]

  Branch: refs/heads/master
  Home:   https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project
  Commit: 41449c58c58e466bcf9cdc4f7415950382bad8d7
      https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/41449c58c58e466bcf9cdc4f7415950382bad8d7
  Author: Roger Ferrer Ibanez <roger.ferrer at bsc.es>
  Date:   2019-11-08 (Fri, 08 Nov 2019)

  Changed paths:
    M llvm/lib/Target/RISCV/MCTargetDesc/RISCVAsmBackend.cpp
    A llvm/test/MC/RISCV/pcrel-fixups.s

  Log Message:
  -----------
  [RISCV] Fix evaluation of %pcrel_lo

The following testcase

  function:
  .Lpcrel_label1:
  	auipc	a0, %pcrel_hi(other_function)
  	addi	a1, a0, %pcrel_lo(.Lpcrel_label1)
  	.p2align	2          # Causes a new fragment to be emitted

  	.type	other_function, at function
  other_function:
  	ret

exposes an odd behaviour in which only the %pcrel_hi relocation is
evaluated but not the %pcrel_lo.

  $ llvm-mc -triple riscv64 -filetype obj t.s | llvm-objdump  -d -r -

  <stdin>:	file format ELF64-riscv

  Disassembly of section .text:
  0000000000000000 function:
         0:	17 05 00 00	auipc	a0, 0
         4:	93 05 05 00	mv	a1, a0
  		0000000000000004:  R_RISCV_PCREL_LO12_I	other_function+4

  0000000000000008 other_function:
         8:	67 80 00 00	ret

The reason seems to be that in RISCVAsmBackend::shouldForceRelocation we
only consider the fragment but in RISCVMCExpr::evaluatePCRelLo we
consider the section. This usually works but there are cases where the
section may still be the same but the fragment may be another one. In
that case we end forcing a %pcrel_lo relocation without any %pcrel_hi.

This patch makes RISCVAsmBackend::shouldForceRelocation use the section,
if any, to determine if the relocation must be forced or not.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60657