MaskRay wrote: The goal is to differentiate two scenarios when a symbol is referenced by a potential R_X86_64_PLT32 relocation:
* `.4byte foo@plt - .` (LLVM assembly extension, not supported in GNU assembler): No redirection to a thunk. References foo or its PLT entry. * `jmp foo; .section .text.foo,"ax"; .fill 4,1,0x90; foo`: Redirect to a thunk if necessary to avoid displacement overflow. When `foo` is local: in the `.4byte` case, Clang references `foo`, while in the `jmp foo` case, it references `.text.foo`. When `foo` is a global or weak symbol, Clang references `foo` in both cases, making them indistinguishable to the linker. I am still confused as to what issues this PR attempts to resolve. Current behavior: ``` jmp foo # llvm: PLT32(.text.foo); gas: PC32(.text.foo) jmp goo # PLT(goo) .section .text.foo,"ax" .fill 1, 4, 0x90 .globl goo foo: goo: .data .4byte foo@plt - . # foo .4byte goo@plt - . # goo ``` This PR changes `jmp foo` to PLT32(foo) When range extension thunks are implemented, and we want to support it for `.4byte foo@plt - .` (LLVM assembly extension), I think we should introduce a new relocation type. (`R_RISCV_PLT32`, IMO, shold not following the x86 naming. `R_RISCV_PLT32_PCREL` might be better.) https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/138795 _______________________________________________ llvm-branch-commits mailing list llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
