[llvm-branch-commits] [lld] ELF: Add branch-to-branch optimization. (PR #138366)

[Peter Smith via llvm-branch-commits]

================
@@ -975,6 +977,62 @@ void AArch64::relocateAlloc(InputSectionBase &sec, uint8_t *buf) const {
   }
 }
 
+static std::optional<uint64_t> getControlTransferAddend(InputSection &is,
+                                                        Relocation &r) {
+  // Identify a control transfer relocation for the branch-to-branch
+  // optimization. A "control transfer relocation" means a B or BL
+  // target but it also includes relative vtable relocations for example.
+  //
+  // We require the relocation type to be JUMP26, CALL26 or PLT32. With a
+  // relocation type of PLT32 the value may be assumed to be used for branching
+  // directly to the symbol and the addend is only used to produce the relocated
+  // value (hence the effective addend is always 0). This is because if a PLT is
+  // needed the addend will be added to the address of the PLT, and it doesn't
+  // make sense to branch into the middle of a PLT. For example, relative vtable
+  // relocations use PLT32 and 0 or a positive value as the addend but still are
+  // used to branch to the symbol.
+  //
+  // With JUMP26 or CALL26 the only reasonable interpretation of a non-zero
+  // addend is that we are branching to symbol+addend so that becomes the
+  // effective addend.
+  if (r.type == R_AARCH64_PLT32)
+    return 0;
+  if (r.type == R_AARCH64_JUMP26 || r.type == R_AARCH64_CALL26)
+    return r.addend;
+  return std::nullopt;
+}
+
+static std::pair<Relocation *, uint64_t> getBranchInfo(InputSection &is,
+                                                       uint64_t offset) {
+  auto *i = std::lower_bound(
+      is.relocations.begin(), is.relocations.end(), offset,
+      [](Relocation &r, uint64_t offset) { return r.offset < offset; });
+  if (i != is.relocations.end() && i->offset == offset &&
+      i->type == R_AARCH64_JUMP26) {
+    return {i, i->addend};
+  }
----------------
smithp35 wrote:

Agree that BTI instructions should be in a separate patch. It would require disassembling to find one so may result in longer link times. Skipping over BTI with direct branches could apply even when the target wasn't another branch.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/138366