[LLVMdev] Remaining big-endian host issues in RuntimeDyld

[Lang Hames]

Hi Daniel,

Thanks very much - I really appreciate you tracking this down. David - once
Daniel's patch goes in it would be interesting to see what impact his work
has had on PPC. I expect this will fix some of the tests there too.

Regarding the AArch64 stub-addr return: My read is that createStubFunction
returns a pointer to the start of the stub for AArch64. Those switch cases
are a bit inconsistent though: What address they return depends on what the
caller (relocation logic) wants to do to fix up the stub. That could be
modifying operands in the stub, or it could be tagging an extra absolute
address field after the stub. Hopefully we can start to clean this stuff up
as we move to a RuntimeDyld-class-per-target setup.

Cheers,
Lang.


On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Daniel Sanders <Daniel.Sanders at imgtec.com>
wrote:

>  I've found it. Host-endianness isn't accounted for when emitting the
> instructions in the ARM, AArch64, and Mips paths of
> RuntimeDyldImpl::createStubFunction(). I'll submit a patch for this soon.
> I'm not sure if PowerPC is affected or not. It uses big-endian order for
> ppc64_le which sounds odd but it also specifies the byte order which
> suggests it could be correct.
>
>
>
> Also, I noticed that the AArch64 path is the only one that returns a
> pointer to the end of the stub function rather than the start. Is that
> correct?
>
>
>
> *From:* llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Daniel Sanders
> *Sent:* 04 November 2014 15:47
> *To:* lhames at gmail.com
> *Cc:* LLVM Developers Mailing List (llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu)
> *Subject:* [LLVMdev] Remaining big-endian host issues in RuntimeDyld
>
>
>
> Hi Lang,
>
>
>
> Thanks for your help at the Hackers Lab. Fixing the problems we identified
> in RuntimeDyldMachOARM.h improves the MachO_ARM_PIC_relocations.s test
> quite a lot but there's one failed check that's proving a bit stubborn:
>
>                 Expression '*{4}(stub_addr(foo.o, __text, baz)) =
> 0xe51ff004' is false: 0x4f01fe5 != 0xe51ff004
>
>
>
> I'm struggling to find the cause of this mismatch at the moment. Do you
> have any idea suggestions on where to look?
>
>
>
> *Daniel Sanders*
>
> Leading Software Design Engineer, MIPS Processor IP
>
> Imagination Technologies Limited
>
> www.imgtec.com
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20141104/d7cb419a/attachment.html>