PATCH: IA64: Don't relax branch in .init/.fini sections.

[H. J. Lu]

On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 04:49:05PM -0700, Jim Wilson wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-06-26 at 22:53, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > 	* elfxx-ia64.c (elfNN_ia64_relax_section): Don't relax branch
> > 	in .init/.fini sections.
> 
> This looks OK to me.
> 
> You suggest using brl.  The gcc startup files deliberately use indirect
> branches to avoid this problem.  We load the function address into a
> register, and then branch on the register.  This also avoids use of brl
> which is a slow on an Itanium1.  If we can ignore Itanium1, then we can
> simplify the gcc startup code a little bit.
> 
> The error message doesn't give any hint about which instruction can't be
> relocated.  Which means if you have lots of them you are screwed.  This
> might be rare enough that we don't have to worry about it.  You didn't
> give any info on how the problem was detected, so I can't tell if this
> matters.

I will check in this shortly.


H.J.
-------------- next part --------------
2004-06-29  H.J. Lu  <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>

	PR 240
	* elfxx-ia64.c (elfNN_ia64_relax_section): Don't relax branch
	in .init/.fini sections.

--- bfd/elfxx-ia64.c.brl	2004-06-29 14:41:42.833932627 -0700
+++ bfd/elfxx-ia64.c	2004-06-29 18:10:44.212915584 -0700
@@ -953,6 +953,19 @@ elfNN_ia64_relax_section (abfd, sec, lin
 	{
 	  bfd_signed_vma offset;
 
+	  /* We can't put a trampoline in a .init/.fini section. Issue
+	     an error.  */
+	  if (strcmp (sec->output_section->name, ".init") == 0
+	      || strcmp (sec->output_section->name, ".fini") == 0)
+	    {
+	      (*_bfd_error_handler)
+		(_("%s: Can't relax br at 0x%lx in section `%s'. Please use brl or indirect branch."),
+		 bfd_archive_filename (sec->owner),
+		 (unsigned long) roff, sec->name);
+	      bfd_set_error (bfd_error_bad_value);
+	      goto error_return;
+	    }
+
 	  reladdr = (sec->output_section->vma
 		     + sec->output_offset
 		     + roff) & (bfd_vma) -4;