[PATCH] Do not use layout-before to layout atoms.
ruiu at google.com
Wed Mar 26 17:19:00 PDT 2014
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Shankar Easwaran
<shankare at codeaurora.org>wrote:
> On 3/26/2014 6:25 PM, Rui Ueyama wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Shankar Easwaran<shankare at codeaurora.org> <shankare at codeaurora.org>wrote:
> On 3/26/2014 5:55 PM, Nick Kledzik wrote:
> On Mar 26, 2014, at 3:37 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> <ruiu at google.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 3:09 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> <kledzik at apple.com> wrote:
> On Mar 26, 2014, at 2:56 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> <ruiu at google.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> <kledzik at apple.com>wrote:
> On Mar 26, 2014, at 2:44 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> <ruiu at google.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 2:23 PM, kledzik at apple.com <kledzik at apple.com> <kledzik at apple.com>wrote:
> Given your description of COFF, I'm not sure follow-on
> atom/references is the right model.
> We probably want a way to order sections. For instance, the darwin
> linker automatically arranges sections for best performance.
> Yes, follow-on atom/references model is not probably the best model
> for COFF. It's too fine grained. The unit of layout is not an atom (symbol)
> but a section. We never want to rearrange or dead-strip each atom. AFAIK so
> is true for ELF and Mach-O.
> The darwin linker very much dead strips and re-orders mach-o at the
> atom level.
> Maybe silly question, but how are dependencies between symbols (atoms)
> represented in Mach-O? I mean, if function A in .text have a relative call
> instructions to function B in the same .text section, both functions needs
> to be in the final executable keeping the same offset.
> The call instruction has a relocation on it, so if the target moves
> (relatively), the linker updates the call instruction.
> In more detail, the linker parses the call instruction and relocation
> and adds to A, a Reference to B. Then everything proceeds as an atom
> graph, including dead stripping and re-ordering. In the writer, after
> atoms that remain are assigned addresses, the writer sees the reference in
> A to B, it knows the address of both, so it fixes up the call instruction
> given those final addresses.
> Thank you for the explanation. That sounds like a different semantics
> than COFF indeed. In COFF we don't usually have relocations within a
> section, so a section is a basic unit and we can't reorder or remove data
> in it. If you want to reorder and dead-strip each function, you have to
> specify /Gy (equivalent to -ffunction-section) to put each function in its
> own section.
> Do you know if we really use layout-after's in ELF to order atoms? It
> seems to me that the default sorting function orders them correctly,
> according to atom's ordinal, file ordinal, etc. Is there any case that we
> are doing more than that using layout-after edges?
> You’ll have to ask Shankar what problem he was trying to solve with the
> layout before/after stuff.
> ELF does not use layout-before references, it uses only layout-after
> and in-group references. The reason the ELF linker tried to do this was
> a) Prevent reordering of atoms and maintain section relationship. All
> atoms in a section have to be tied together. Anything that tries to reorder
> has to reorder the whole section.
> b) This also would clearly model linker scripts in the future that moving
> a function would make sure the section that contains the function is moved,
> and not the individual function.
> This was earlier discussed in the thread :http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20121022/154212.html
> I would like to have the kindLayoutBefore/kindLayoutAfter/kindInGroup
> references to exist and do the functionalities that it is trying to
> This could be used when we want to implement the order file in the near
> Is there anything that is presently depending on layout-after and in-group,
> which does not work with the default ordering function, compareAtomsSub()?
> I don't intend to say that that wouldn't be needed for ELF, but just trying
> to understand.
> As to the feature set that LayoutPass provides, we shouldn't keep this
> complexity as is as I repeatedly stated, because as I sayd multiple times
> it seems that this level of complexity is not (and will not) needed.
> Tell me another way to accomplish the same thing that I would want to
> order atoms with a linker script ?
> How can I make sure the section that contains the atoms are moved as a
> group without this change ?
That's what I'm asking. If some feature is needed for some ELF linker
script feature, we need to implement or keep it, so I wanted to know actual
examples. Also, what I'm asking in the first sentence is about the current
implementation of ELF support in LLD.
Specifically, layout-before relationship is not really needed for ay
> occasion to layout atoms -- in all cases when you want to layout atom A
> before B, you can just add "layout-after to A" to B instead. Dead-stripping
> path would still need doubly-linked graph, but it does not mean that
> layout-pass needs to use it too.
> I think I have said many times as well, again ELF uses *only*layout-after and in-group.
> You cannot model weak symbols with just layout-after reference alone. You
> cannot have a Layout After reference to a weak symbol, as when the weak
> symbol could be overridden.
> To make function alias symbols, ELF needs kindLayoutBefore reference, so
> that the linker can easily setup an alias to a function(the +afs option).
> The alias symbols are again zero sized symbols that are defined through
> the command-line.
I don't see the reason why you can't use kindLayoutAfter instead of
kindLayoutBefore to enforce layout in that case. In order to create a
layout-before edge from atom A to B, you need to have references both to A
and B. So adding "layout-before A" edge to B is as easy as adding
"layout-after B" edge to B.
For example, if you already have A -> B ("->" means "layout-after") and
want to add X (zero size atom) as an alias for A, you can insert X after A,
so that the resulting graph looks like A -> X -> B. It can also be
represented as A -> B and B => X ("=>" means "layout-before"). My point is
that we can choose either of two, but the former is simpler.
I'm not suggesting we remove in-group or layout-after. I'm against keep
supporting layout-before in the layout pass.
> Shankar Easwaran
> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by the Linux Foundation
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-commits