On Sun, Sep 4, 2022 at 12:00 AM Lulu Cheng <chengl...@loongson.cn> wrote: > > > 在 2022/9/4 下午2:35, Xi Ruoyao 写道: > > On Sun, 2022-09-04 at 11:22 +0800, Lulu Cheng wrote: > >> 在 2022/9/4 上午10:51, Xi Ruoyao 写道: > >> > >>> On Sun, 2022-09-04 at 10:26 +0800, Lulu Cheng wrote: > >>> > >>>> If the above modifications are not added, the function call is: > >>>> > >>>> bl %plt(test1) > >>>> > >>>> now is : > >>>> > >>>> bl test1 > >>> Regarding "%plt(...)", in the binutils code: > >>> > >>> /* For compatible old asm code. */ > >>> if (0 == strcmp (op_c_str, "plt")) > >>> btype = BFD_RELOC_LARCH_B26; > >>> > >>> Link: > >>> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=blob;f=gas/config/loongarch-parse.y;h=8704687706df50aa15aff05f97e4560d7ec6fa23;hb=refs/heads/master#l131 > >>> > >>> Zhensong: does "old asm code" here mean we should remove %plt from > >>> "new" > >>> assembly code, i. e. stop to print %plt(...) in GCC completely? > >>> > >> > >> I think '%plt' also needs to be removed from the readability of the > >> assembly code.:-\ > > I understand, but maybe we should remove %plt unconditionally, with or > > without -mdirect-extern-access. Note that for -mcmodel=medium we don't > > say something like "%pc_hi20(%plt(x))" either. > > > I have thought about this problem. For example, there is no '%plt' in > aarch64, but I think it can be added and easily distinguished at the > assembly code level, > > so this is not removed.
I think @plt should be removed unconditionally. It was a mistake in some ABI (e.g. i386, riscv).
