[PATCH] RISC-V: fix linker message when relaxation deletes bytes
Clément Chigot
chigot@adacore.com
Thu Nov 17 09:36:18 GMT 2022
Hi
Gentle ping
On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 10:57 AM Clément Chigot <chigot@adacore.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Gentle ping
>
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 9:24 AM Clément Chigot <chigot@adacore.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 7:08 AM Nelson Chu <nelson@rivosinc.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 8:06 PM Clément Chigot via Binutils
> > > <binutils@sourceware.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Gentle ping
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Clément
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 1:46 PM Clément Chigot <chigot@adacore.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The section relaxation can delete some bytes resulting in the symbols'
> > > > > value being modified.
> > > > > As the linker messages retrieve a symbol information using the
> > > > > outsymbols field of abfd, it must be updated as well.
> > >
> > > Interesting, I never noticed this. If this is necessary, then other
> > > targets should also update the output symbols when relaxing (nds32 and
> > > sh), but it seems like they don't do that as well.
> >
> > Yeah, I agree there are probably other targets having a similar issue.
> > I don't know at what extend outsymbols is being used for. But the fact
> > that is being filled with "untouched" symbols in object files looks
> > weird to me. Maybe there is something to look into this direction.
> > For now, this patch aims just to fix ld-undefined on Risc-V targets.
> >
> > > > > bfd/ChangeLog:
> > > > >
> > > > > * elfnn-riscv.c (riscv_relax_delete_bytes): Update
> > > > > abfd->outsymbols.
> > > > >
> > > > > ld/ChangeLog:
> > > > >
> > > > > * testsuite/ld-riscv-elf/ld-riscv-elf.exp: New test.
> > > > > * testsuite/ld-riscv-elf/undefined-align.d: New test.
> > > > > * testsuite/ld-riscv-elf/undefined-align.s: New test.
> > > > > ---
> > > > > bfd/elfnn-riscv.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > ld/testsuite/ld-riscv-elf/ld-riscv-elf.exp | 1 +
> > > > > ld/testsuite/ld-riscv-elf/undefined-align.d | 5 +++++
> > > > > ld/testsuite/ld-riscv-elf/undefined-align.s | 10 +++++++++
> > > > > 4 files changed, 39 insertions(+)
> > > > > create mode 100644 ld/testsuite/ld-riscv-elf/undefined-align.d
> > > > > create mode 100644 ld/testsuite/ld-riscv-elf/undefined-align.s
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/bfd/elfnn-riscv.c b/bfd/elfnn-riscv.c
> > > > > index 3d2ddf4e651..7a6b66dcd8a 100644
> > > > > --- a/bfd/elfnn-riscv.c
> > > > > +++ b/bfd/elfnn-riscv.c
> > > > > @@ -4060,6 +4060,7 @@ riscv_relax_delete_bytes (bfd *abfd,
> > > > > unsigned int sec_shndx = _bfd_elf_section_from_bfd_section (abfd, sec);
> > > > > struct bfd_elf_section_data *data = elf_section_data (sec);
> > > > > bfd_byte *contents = data->this_hdr.contents;
> > > > > + asymbol **outsyms = bfd_get_outsymbols (abfd);
> > > > >
> > > > > /* Actually delete the bytes. */
> > > > > sec->size -= count;
> > > > > @@ -4158,6 +4159,28 @@ riscv_relax_delete_bytes (bfd *abfd,
> > > > > }
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > + /* As linker messages are getting symbols through outsymbols field of abfd,
> > > > > + it must be adjusted too. */
> > > > > + if (outsyms == NULL)
> > > > > + {
> > > > > + if (!bfd_generic_link_read_symbols (abfd))
> > > > > + link_info->callbacks->einfo (_("%F%P: %pB: could not read symbols: %E\n"), abfd);
> > > > > + outsyms = bfd_get_outsymbols (abfd);
> > > > > + }
> > > > > +
> > > > > + for (i = 0; i < bfd_get_symcount (abfd); i++)
> > > > > + {
> > > > > + asymbol *sym = outsyms[i];
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (sym->section != sec)
> > > > > + continue;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /* If the symbol is in the range of memory we just moved, we
> > > > > + have to adjust its value. */
> > > > > + if (sym->value > addr && sym->value <= toaddr)
> > > > > + sym->value -= count;
> > > > > + }
> > > > > +
> > > > > return true;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/ld/testsuite/ld-riscv-elf/ld-riscv-elf.exp b/ld/testsuite/ld-riscv-elf/ld-riscv-elf.exp
> > > > > index df89e0ee68b..86f1d05bc08 100644
> > > > > --- a/ld/testsuite/ld-riscv-elf/ld-riscv-elf.exp
> > > > > +++ b/ld/testsuite/ld-riscv-elf/ld-riscv-elf.exp
> > > > > @@ -176,6 +176,7 @@ if [istarget "riscv*-*-*"] {
> > > > > [list "Weak reference 64" "-T weakref.ld -m[riscv_choose_lp64_emul]" "" \
> > > > > "-march=rv64i -mabi=lp64" {weakref64.s} \
> > > > > {{objdump -d weakref64.d}} "weakref64"]]
> > > > > + run_dump_test "undefined-align"
> > > > >
> > > > > # The following tests require shared library support.
> > > > > if ![check_shared_lib_support] {
> > > > > diff --git a/ld/testsuite/ld-riscv-elf/undefined-align.d b/ld/testsuite/ld-riscv-elf/undefined-align.d
> > > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > > index 00000000000..c8cbb84ac7c
> > > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > > +++ b/ld/testsuite/ld-riscv-elf/undefined-align.d
> > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
> > > > > +#name: undefined with alignment
> > > > > +#source: undefined-align.s
> > > > > +#as:
> > > > > +#ld: --relax
> > > > > +#error: \A[^\n]*\.o: in function `_start':\n\(\.text\+0x0\): undefined reference to `foo'\Z
> > > > > diff --git a/ld/testsuite/ld-riscv-elf/undefined-align.s b/ld/testsuite/ld-riscv-elf/undefined-align.s
> > > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > > index 00000000000..577557c663a
> > > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > > +++ b/ld/testsuite/ld-riscv-elf/undefined-align.s
> > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
> > > > > +# Make sure that the linker messages take into account the modification
> > > > > +# of a symbol's value made during the section relaxation.
> > > > > +# Here, "_start" will have an offset made by ".align 4" which will be
> > > > > +# removed during the relaxation of R_RISCV_ALIGN.
> > > > > + .text
> > > > > + .align 4
> > > > > + .globl _start
> > > > > + .type _start, @function
> > > > > +_start:
> > > > > + call foo
> > >
> > > Tested with undefined-align.s, I get the following error message
> > > before applying this patch,
> > >
> > > % riscv64-unknown-elf-ld tmp.o
> > >
> > > riscv64-unknown-elf-ld: tmp.o:(.text+0x0): undefined reference to `foo'
> > >
> > > And get the error after applying this patch,
> > >
> > > % riscv64-unknown-elf-ld tmp.o
> > >
> > > riscv64-unknown-elf-ld: tmp.o: in function `_start':
> > >
> > > (.text+0x0): undefined reference to `foo'
> > >
> > > It reports more detail, but I cannot see if the removed offset may
> > > cause the wrong message?
> >
> > I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
> > As in the object file, _start starts at 0xc, you mean that the error
> > message should be something like:
> > | riscv64-unknown-elf-ld: tmp.o: in function `_start':
> > | (.text+0xc): undefined reference to `foo'
> > ?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Clément
More information about the Binutils
mailing list