[LLVMdev] Typo in IsLegalToCallImmediateAddr?

[David Meyer]

Remaining questions...

Is "call 1234" legal in X86-32 MachO Static? How about X86-32 COFF static?

Is the legality with dynamic-no-pic the same as with static?

- pdox


On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote:
> Thought a bit more. There's also -mdynamic-no-pic. Not typically used these days, but is still there AFAIK.
>
> -Jim
>
> On Oct 21, 2011, at 4:05 PM, Eric Christopher wrote:
>
>> IIRC the kernel uses relocation model as static.
>>
>> -eric
>>
>> On Oct 21, 2011, at 3:57 PM, David Meyer wrote:
>>
>>> Eli,
>>>
>>> Hm. There's a test in (CodeGen/X86/call-imm.ll) which uses darwin with
>>> relocation model static. It expects to use call-to-immediate.
>>>
>>> Is this in error? Should I disable this check?
>>>
>>> - pdox
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 2011/10/21 Rafael Ávila de Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com>:
>>>>>> Could be, echristo, bigcheese, would this be correct for Mach-O and COFF?
>>>>>
>>>>> bigcheese noted on IRC that the test crashes the COFF emitter. For some
>>>>> reason I am always getting
>>>>>
>>>>>       movl    $256, %eax              ## imm = 0x100
>>>>>       calll   *%eax
>>>>>
>>>>> on darwin already
>>>>
>>>> IIRC, we never use Static on Darwin targets.
>>>>
>>>> -Eli
>>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
>