[PATCH] D30699: [ELF] - Stop producing broken output for R_386_GOT32X relocation.

[Rui Ueyama via llvm-commits]

H.J.Lu,

This may be a dumb question, but why didn't you define new types of
relocations for GOT/GOTX without base registers? Making relocations change
their behavior based on instructions where they applied doesn't seem like a
cleaner way than defining new relocations.

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Rui Ueyama via Phabricator <
reviews at reviews.llvm.org> wrote:

> ruiu added inline comments.
>
>
> ================
> Comment at: ELF/Target.cpp:394
> +    // resolves to an offset in GOT table (R_GOT_FROM_END), but when
> instruction
> +    // pointed by relocation has no base register, this relocation can be
> used
> +    // when PIC code is disabled. In that case it resolves to address of
> entry
> ----------------
> What is "this" in this sentence?
>
>
> ================
> Comment at: ELF/Target.cpp:406
> +      error(toString(S.File) +
> +            ": relocation R_386_GOT32/R_386_GOT32X against '" +
> S.getName() +
> +            "' without base register can not be used when PIC enabled");
> ----------------
> You want to use `toString(Type)` instead of R_386_GOT32/R_386_GOT32X.
>
>
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D30699
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20170405/3a5b8ea3/attachment.html>