[PATCH] D143673: [lld][RISCV][WIP] Implement GP relaxation for R_RISCV_HI20/R_RISCV_LO12_I/R_RISCV_LO12_S.
Craig Topper via Phabricator via llvm-commits
llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
Thu Feb 9 15:27:43 PST 2023
craig.topper added inline comments.
================
Comment at: llvm/include/llvm/BinaryFormat/ELFRelocs/RISCV.def:49
ELF_RELOC(R_RISCV_RVC_LUI, 46)
+ELF_RELOC(R_RISCV_GPREL_I, 47)
+ELF_RELOC(R_RISCV_GPREL_S, 48)
----------------
jrtc27 wrote:
> craig.topper wrote:
> > jrtc27 wrote:
> > > These don't exist, they were removed as they were solely internal to binutils, and their encodings are reserved for future standard use
> > Is binutils only going to be updated to use different values when a new standard use is introduced?
> >
> > Is there a safe number to use for LLD insternal use?
> So long they're not permitted in inputs it's "fine" as it won't misinterpret future files, but using ELF_RELOC here means all the other tools will think this is a real relocation (e.g. llvm-readelf will decode it). Can you not just use R_RISCV_RELAX like for TLS, though? It seems you're doing the exact same thing.
In order to support .sbss, I believe I need to create a relocation to communicate from the instruction relaxation phase to the `relax` function which runs later. When I tried to rewrite .sbss globals in `relaxHi20Lo12` I got the wrong addresses. My thinking was that I needed the .text section to shrink and the layout of later sections to adjust before I could do the instruction rewriting.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D143673/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D143673
More information about the llvm-commits
mailing list