[libcxx-commits] [lldb] [compiler-rt] [clang-tools-extra] [clang] [libc] [libunwind] [lld] [libcxx] [flang] [mlir] [llvm] [ELF] Implement R_RISCV_TLSDESC for RISC-V (PR #79239)

[Paul Kirth via libcxx-commits]

================
@@ -513,29 +547,125 @@ void RISCV::relocate(uint8_t *loc, const Relocation &rel, uint64_t val) const {
     break;
 
   case R_RISCV_RELAX:
-    return; // Ignored (for now)
-
+    return;
+  case R_RISCV_TLSDESC:
+    // The addend is stored in the second word.
+    if (config->is64)
+      write64le(loc + 8, val);
+    else
+      write32le(loc + 4, val);
+    break;
   default:
     llvm_unreachable("unknown relocation");
   }
 }
 
+static void tlsdescToIe(uint8_t *loc, const Relocation &rel, uint64_t val) {
+  switch (rel.type) {
+  case R_RISCV_TLSDESC_HI20:
+  case R_RISCV_TLSDESC_LOAD_LO12:
+    write32le(loc, 0x00000013); // nop
+    break;
+  case R_RISCV_TLSDESC_ADD_LO12:
+    write32le(loc, utype(AUIPC, X_A0, hi20(val))); // auipc a0,<hi20>
+    break;
+  case R_RISCV_TLSDESC_CALL:
+    if (config->is64)
+      write32le(loc, itype(LD, X_A0, X_A0, lo12(val))); // ld a0,<lo12>(a0)
+    else
+      write32le(loc, itype(LW, X_A0, X_A0, lo12(val))); // lw a0,<lo12>(a0)
+    break;
+  default:
+    llvm_unreachable("unsupported relocation for TLSDESC to IE");
+  }
+}
+
+static void tlsdescToLe(uint8_t *loc, const Relocation &rel, uint64_t val) {
+  switch (rel.type) {
+  case R_RISCV_TLSDESC_HI20:
+  case R_RISCV_TLSDESC_LOAD_LO12:
+    write32le(loc, 0x00000013); // nop
+    return;
+  case R_RISCV_TLSDESC_ADD_LO12:
+    if (isInt<12>(val))
+      write32le(loc, 0x00000013); // nop
+    else
+      write32le(loc, utype(LUI, X_A0, hi20(val))); // lui a0,<hi20>
+    return;
+  case R_RISCV_TLSDESC_CALL:
+    if (isInt<12>(val))
+      write32le(loc, itype(ADDI, X_A0, 0, val)); // addi a0,zero,<lo12>
+    else
+      write32le(loc, itype(ADDI, X_A0, X_A0, lo12(val))); // addi a0,a0,<lo12>
+    return;
+  default:
+    llvm_unreachable("unsupported relocation for TLSDESC to LE");
+  }
+}
+
 void RISCV::relocateAlloc(InputSectionBase &sec, uint8_t *buf) const {
   uint64_t secAddr = sec.getOutputSection()->addr;
   if (auto *s = dyn_cast<InputSection>(&sec))
     secAddr += s->outSecOff;
   else if (auto *ehIn = dyn_cast<EhInputSection>(&sec))
     secAddr += ehIn->getParent()->outSecOff;
-  for (size_t i = 0, size = sec.relocs().size(); i != size; ++i) {
-    const Relocation &rel = sec.relocs()[i];
+  uint64_t tlsdescVal = 0;
+  bool isToLe = false;
+  const ArrayRef<Relocation> relocs = sec.relocs();
+  for (size_t i = 0, size = relocs.size(); i != size; ++i) {
+    const Relocation &rel = relocs[i];
     uint8_t *loc = buf + rel.offset;
-    const uint64_t val =
+    uint64_t val =
         sec.getRelocTargetVA(sec.file, rel.type, rel.addend,
                              secAddr + rel.offset, *rel.sym, rel.expr);
 
     switch (rel.expr) {
     case R_RELAX_HINT:
+      continue;
+    case R_TLSDESC_PC:
+      // For R_RISCV_TLSDESC_HI20, store &got(sym)-PC to be used by the
+      // following two instructions L[DW] and ADDI.
+      if (rel.type == R_RISCV_TLSDESC_HI20)
+        tlsdescVal = val;
+      else
+        val = tlsdescVal;
       break;
+    case R_RELAX_TLS_GD_TO_IE:
+      // Only R_RISCV_TLSDESC_HI20 reaches here. tlsdescVal will be finalized
+      // after we see R_RISCV_TLSDESC_ADD_LO12 in the R_RELAX_TLS_GD_TO_LE case.
+      // The net effect is that tlsdescVal will be smaller than `val` to take
+      // into account of NOP instructions (in the absence of R_RISCV_RELAX)
+      // before AUIPC.
+      tlsdescVal = val + rel.offset;
+      isToLe = false;
+      if (!(i + 1 != relocs.size() && relocs[i + 1].type == R_RISCV_RELAX))
+        tlsdescToIe(loc, rel, val);
+      continue;
+    case R_RELAX_TLS_GD_TO_LE:
+      // See the comment in handleTlsRelocation. For TLSDESC=>IE,
+      // R_RISCV_TLSDESC_{LOAD_LO12,ADD_LO12,CALL} also reach here. If isToIe is
+      // true, this is actually TLSDESC=>IE optimization.
+      if (rel.type == R_RISCV_TLSDESC_HI20) {
+        tlsdescVal = val;
+        isToLe = true;
+      } else {
+        if (!isToLe && rel.type == R_RISCV_TLSDESC_ADD_LO12)
+          tlsdescVal -= rel.offset;
+        val = tlsdescVal;
+      }
+      // When NOP conversion is eligible and R_RISCV_RELAX is present, don't
+      // write a NOP in case an unrelated instruction follows the current
+      // instruction.
+      if ((rel.type == R_RISCV_TLSDESC_HI20 ||
+           rel.type == R_RISCV_TLSDESC_LOAD_LO12 ||
+           (rel.type == R_RISCV_TLSDESC_ADD_LO12 && isToLe && !hi20(val))) &&
+          i + 1 != relocs.size() && relocs[i + 1].type == R_RISCV_RELAX)
----------------
ilovepi wrote:

This is a pretty complicated condition ... I know its a one off, but do you think it makes sense to use a helper, just for the readability aspect? Maybe `canReplaceTlLSDESCWithNop()` or `isTLSDESCRelocElegibleForNop()`?

It may make sense to at least use a helper for 
`!(i + 1 != relocs.size() && relocs[i + 1].type == R_RISCV_RELAX` since its used another time.

I'm fine either way, since this is a style choice(and is really a nit), but I think it would be easier to understand of some of the complexity was abstracted away.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/79239