[llvm-dev] RFC: LLD range extension thunks
Saleem Abdulrasool via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Jan 18 19:00:01 PST 2017
Out of curiosity, would this be done in a object format agnostic way?
Windows ARM requires the same branch island support, and the logic for the
detection and placement could be shared across ELF and COFF I suspect.
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Simon Atanasyan via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On Jan 19, 2017 2:48 AM, "Ed Maste" <emaste at freebsd.org> wrote:
> On 4 January 2017 at 13:34, Peter Smith via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > I'm about to start working on range extension thunks in lld. This is
> > an attempt to summarize the approach I'd like to take and what the
> > impact will be on lld outside of thunks.
> Now that LLD works well for FreeBSD/amd64 (and arm64 is very close)
> I'm looking at other architectures, starting with mips64. The
> statically-linked toolchain components currently fail to link with an
> out of range jump, so I'm very interested in seeing this work
> progress. Are you looking at only arm and AArch64? Once the
> infrastructure is in I'll try to take a look at mips if nobody else
> does first.
> I'm waiting for this changes too. Now mips thunks places at the end of the
> corresponding section. Not sure about FreeBSD but on Linux that leads to
> incorrect code in case of static linking -- a thunk goes between crt*.o
> files which needs to be "joined" together. Gnu linker puts thunks to the
> separate section. We need to do the same thing.
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev