[PATCH] D63404: [RISCV] Don't force absolute FK_Data_X fixups to relocs

[Alex Bradbury via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

asb added a comment.
Herald added subscribers: lenary, MaskRay.

Hi Ed, I'm struggling a bit to follow the test case you're adding here. You're checking for the absence of R_RISCV_{32,64} but the relocations produced by these expressions are surely going to be R_RISCV_{ADD,SUB}{32,64}?

In the general case, aren't we required to emit relocations for these symbol differences? The symbols might be defined in a code section and relaxation might lead to the symbol location changing?


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D63404/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D63404