Re: [PATCH/RFA] SH TLS support (Revised)

[kaz Kojima <kkojima at rr dot iij4u dot or dot jp>]

Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp@bitrange.com> wrote:
>> The TLS relocs should be handled as non-adjustable in
>> sh_fix_adjustable. I'm not sure about sh_force_relocation.
>
>They're user-specified (assembly-programmer-specified;
>compiler-specified) relocations, so they are supposed to enter
>the object file regardless of what optimization-opportunities
>the assembler thinks there are.  If the assembler finds out an
>optimization opportunity for a relocation against (say) .tdata,
>I don't think it is really wanted. ;-)

Thank you for the clarification. I understood.

>> I've tried this, but have a problem. sh64 objects contain .crangs
>> section even with -isa=SHcompact, so the results of TLS tests
>> are pretty different.
>
>Can the .cranges section be matched by "#..."-lines? If they
>can, please add them, else (for example I imagine the case is
>with some readelf-tests checking section headers) use
>"#target: ..." to select in each test.

The existence of .cranges affects the size of .hash and .dynsym,
then the address of .text in shared lib and so on. Some section
numbers coded in relocations are also shifted. Anyway, I'll replace
such addresses and numbers with the patterns and use "#..."-lines.

>Then please match DSO-able systems in the test themselves, by
>using "#target:".  For the assembler tests the program headers
>problem should not matter.

OK. I think that sh*-linux* and sh*-*-netbsd* are DSO-able.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Regards,
	kaz