This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCHv2] [Bug 20868] ld: aarch64: fix GD->IE relaxation in ilp32 mode
- From: Jiong Wang <jiong dot wang at foss dot arm dot com>
- To: Yury Norov <ynorov at caviumnetworks dot com>
- Cc: binutils at sourceware dot org, Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana dot gcc at googlemail dot com>, Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gmail dot com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 10:08:35 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] [Bug 20868] ld: aarch64: fix GD->IE relaxation in ilp32 mode
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20161130044714.GA18796@yury-N73SV>
On 30/11/16 04:47, Yury Norov wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 04:45:12PM +0000, Jiong Wang wrote:
On 28/11/16 17:45, Yury Norov wrote:
LD detects the access to TLS that it can optimize, but does it wrong
in ilp32 mode - actual address differs from expected.
It's because ld it calculates the address with "ldr x0, [x0, #:gottprel_lo12:var]"
which is correct for lp64, but for ilp32 it should be "ldr w0, [x0, #:gottprel_lo12:var]".
This patch fixes it by checking arch info. Also it replaces "add x0, x1, x0" with
"add w0, w1, w0". This instruction doesn't make troubles now, but in ilp32 mode
32-bit registers should be used in this case.
Test that reproduses the bug is here:
v2: add test to the testsuite.
* bfd/elfnn-aarch64.c: Fix gd-ie relocation in ilp32 mode
* ld/testsuite/ld-aarch64/aarch64-elf.exp: Add new test
* ld/testsuite/ld-aarch64/relocs-ilp32.ld: New file
* ld/testsuite/ld-aarch64/tls-relax-gd-ie-ilp32.d: Likewise.
Looks good to me though I can't approve, just don't forget add PR
target/20868 in your changelog.
Great. It's important for ILP32 as it fixes 5 extra failures of ~23
in glibc testsuite. Who can take it? I'd ping him personally.
You can check SRC/binutils/MAINTAINERS, I think it needs approval from
AArch64 maintainers or project head maintainers, just give them some
time before ping (normally one week).
Is my understanding correct that I have your ack?