[llvm-dev] LLD: creating linker-generated sections as input sections instead of output sections

[Peter Smith via llvm-dev]

Thanks for the RFC.

I'm in favour of the option of creating InputSections for some linker
generated content. I think it would add extra flexibility to the
linker. ARM's proprietary linker uses the equivalent of InputSections
with a pseudo linker defined ObjectFile for SHF_ALLOC content. As
Eugene points out it isn't always appropriate for meta-data sections.

In particular it would be great to have a pseudo InputFile that local
symbols could be generated in as this would make supporting mapping
symbols[*] in linker generated sections much easier. It would also
make a Thunk implementation that generated standalone InputSections
rather than adding as patches to existing InputSections.

The disadvantage with extra flexibility is that it increases the
amount of opportunities for both implementers and users to make
mistakes, and it makes some implementation details more complicated.
Where we would have been able to guarantee a single OutputSection, we
may have many clumps of InputSections distributed across several
OutputSections. In some cases it is user error to split InputSections
apart as they need to be contiguous, which requites diagnostics, and
in some cases algorithms need to be careful, for example in embedded
systems it is not always appropriate to string merge between
OutputSections as these OutputSections may not exist in memory on the
at the same time (Overlays).

Personally I think the additional flexibility is worth it.

[*] Mapping symbols identify ranges of ARM code ($a), Thumb code ($t)
and literal data ($d). It would be great to add these to Thunks and
PLT entries as this would improve disassembly.

On 19 October 2016 at 10:37, Eugene Leviant via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> I would suggest converting only part of linker generated sections to
> input sections to reduce amount of code changes.
> For example it's unlikely that SymbolTableSection or
> StringTableSection would ever require such treatment, so why
> converting them to input sections?
>
>
> 2016-10-19 11:03 GMT+03:00 George Rimar <grimar at accesssoftek.com>:
>>>This idea popped up in the review thread for
>>> https://reviews.llvm.org/D25627.
>>
>>>
>>>Problem:
>>>
>>>Currently, LLD creates special sections that are not just concatenations of
>>> input sections but need link-time data generation, such as .got, .plt,
>>> interp, .mips.options, >etc., as output sections. We have OutputSectionBase
>>> subclasses (e.g. GotSection, PltSection, etc.) to create data. Even though
>>> this scheme works in most cases, >there are a few situations that doesn't
>>> work well as you may have noticed. Here are a issues.
>>>
>>  >- You cannot mix special sections with other types of sections.
>>>
>>>  For example, using linker scripts, you can instruct the linker put
>>> mergeable sections and non-mergeable sections into the same output section.
>>> Such script makes >sense. However, LLD cannot handle such script because
>>> string merging is the special mergeable output section's feature. The output
>>> section doesn't know how to >handle other types of sections, so you cannot
>>> feed non-mergeable sections to a mergeable output section.
>>>
>>> - It cannot handle linker scripts like this as pointed by Eugene.
>>>
>>>  .got { *(.got.plt) *(.got) }
>>>
>>>   In our current architecture, .got section is an output section, so it
>>> cannot be added to other output section. There's no clean way to handle this
>>> linker script.
>>>
>>>Proposal:
>>>
>>>Here's my idea: how about creating all special sections as input sections
>>> instead of output sections?
>>>
>>>GotSection, PltSection, etc. will be subclasses of InputSection that don't
>>> have corresponding input files. What they will do remain the same. They will
>>> be added to >OutputSections just like other regular sections are added. I
>>> think we could simplify OutputSection a lot -- OutputSection will probably
>>> become a dumb container >that just concatenates all input sections.
>>>
>>>This approach would solve the problems described above. Now that we create
>>> .got as an special input section with ".got" as a name, so they can
>>> naturally be added >to any output section. String merging occurs inside a
>>> special mergeable input section, so they can be added to any section, too.
>>>
>>>So, I think by moving the implementations from OutputSection to
>>> InputSection, we can solve many problems. I do not think of any obvious
>>> problem with the >approach.
>>>
>>>What do you think?
>>
>> For me that sounds as interesting idea. My consern and guess that amount of
>> code changes can be really large for that.
>> But generally I so not see real problems with this approach too.
>>
>> George.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev