[GOLD][PATCH] Set SHF_LINK_ORDER flags of ARM EXIDX sections.
Doug Kwan (關振德)
dougkwan@google.com
Wed Oct 20 10:39:00 GMT 2010
More information about the Binutils mailing list
Wed Oct 20 10:39:00 GMT 2010
- Previous message (by thread): [GOLD][PATCH] Set SHF_LINK_ORDER flags of ARM EXIDX sections.
- Next message (by thread): [GOLD][PATCH] Set SHF_LINK_ORDER flags of ARM EXIDX sections.
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Here is a new patch. I changed the code in layout.cc so that SHF_LINK_ORDER is not filter in a relocatable link. I also added a check in the ARM back-end to warn about EXIDX input sections without SHF_LINK_ORDER flags. -Doug 2010-10-20 Doug Kwan <dougkwan@google.com> * arm.cc (Arm_relobj::do_read_symbols): Warn about ARM EXIDX sections without SHF_LINK_ORDER flags. * layout.cc (Layout::choose_output_section): Do not filter SHF_LINK_ORDER flag in a relocatable link. 在 2010年10月20日上午8:41,Doug Kwan (關振德) <dougkwan@google.com> 寫道: > I will try your approach. > > On Oct 20, 2010 3:39 AM, "Cary Coutant" <ccoutant@google.com> wrote: >> I'm not wild about this patch. I think it would be better to just refuse >> to >> combine sections with unlike flags in a -r link -- ie, don't filter out so >> many of the flags. I'm not near the code at the moment, but I don't think >> any target-specific magic is necessary here. >> >> -cary >> On Oct 19, 2010 11:54 AM, "Doug Kwan (關振德)" <dougkwan@google.com> wrote: >>> Here is a revised patch. >>> >>> -Doug >>> >>> 2010-10-19 Doug Kwan <dougkwan@google.com> >>> >>> * arm.cc (Target_arm::do_finalize_sections): Force SHF_LINK_ORDER >>> flag in section headers of EXIDX sections in a relocatable link. >>> * output.cc (Output_section::Output_section): Initialize member >>> force_link_order_. >>> * output.h (Output_section::force_link_order): New method. >>> (Output_section::set_force_link_order): Ditto. >>> (Output_section::force_link_order_): New data member. >>> >>> >>> 在 2010年10月20日上午12:53,Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> 寫道: >>>> "Doug Kwan (關振德)" <dougkwan@google.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> Gold does not handle SHF_LINK_ORDER flag in general, we drop the flag >>>>> when searching for an output section. >>>>> >>>>> Output_section* >>>>> Layout::choose_output_section(const Relobj* relobj, const char* name, >>>>> elfcpp::Elf_Word type, elfcpp::Elf_Xword flags, >>>>> bool is_input_section, Output_section_order order, >>>>> bool is_relro) >>>>> ... >>>>> >>>>> // Some flags in the input section should not be automatically >>>>> // copied to the output section. >>>>> flags &= ~ (elfcpp::SHF_INFO_LINK >>>>> | elfcpp::SHF_LINK_ORDER >>>>> | elfcpp::SHF_GROUP >>>>> | elfcpp::SHF_MERGE >>>> >>>> Oh yeah, sorry about that. >>>> >>>> That is incorrect when generating relocatable output. Rather than >>>> testing for SHT_ARM_EXIDX in the target-independent code, suppose we add >>>> another bit flag to Output_section. Then we can set it if >>>> SHF_LINK_ORDER is set in the input section, which will be correct once >>>> we finally support SHF_LINK_ORDER. And the ARM backend can set it at >>>> will. >>>> >>>> Ian >>>> >>>>> 在 2010年10月19日下午10:07,Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> 寫道: >>>>>> "Doug Kwan (關振德)" <dougkwan@google.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> This patch changes code writing output section headers so that the >>>>>>> SHF_LINK_ORDER flag of a section of type SHT_ARM_EXIDX is always set. >>>>>>> The flag is required to be set for such a section by the ARM EHABI. >>>>>>> The existing code drops the SHF_LINK_ORDER flag and that confuses >>>>>>> other tools. Gold does not handle SHF_LINK_ORDER in general but the >>>>>>> ARM back-end can handle the EXIDX sections. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Doug >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2010-10-19 Doug Kwan <dougkwan@google.com> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * output.cc(Output_section::write_header): Set SHF_LINK_ORDER flags >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> ARM EXIDX sections. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't see the ARM backend actually creating any SHT_ARM_EXIDX >>>>>> sections. So it seems to me that they are input sections. If the ABI >>>>>> requires the input sections to have the SHF_LINK_ORDER flag set, then >>>>>> that setting should carry through to the output section. Does that not >>>>>> happen? >>>>>> >>>>>> Ian >>>>>> >>>> > -------------- next part -------------- ? patch-force-link-order.txt Index: gold/arm.cc =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gold/arm.cc,v retrieving revision 1.124 diff -u -u -p -r1.124 arm.cc --- gold/arm.cc 17 Oct 2010 15:12:50 -0000 1.124 +++ gold/arm.cc 20 Oct 2010 10:31:22 -0000 @@ -6662,6 +6662,10 @@ Arm_relobj<big_endian>::do_read_symbols( + text_shndx * shdr_size); this->make_exidx_input_section(i, shdr, text_shndx, text_shdr); } + // EHABI 4.4.1 requires that SHF_LINK_ORDER flag to be set. + if ((shdr.get_sh_flags() & elfcpp::SHF_LINK_ORDER) == 0) + gold_warning(_("SHF_LINK_ORDER not set in EXIDX section %s of %s"), + this->section_name(i).c_str(), this->name().c_str()); } } Index: gold/layout.cc =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gold/layout.cc,v retrieving revision 1.184 diff -u -u -p -r1.184 layout.cc --- gold/layout.cc 18 Oct 2010 05:39:22 -0000 1.184 +++ gold/layout.cc 20 Oct 2010 10:31:22 -0000 @@ -489,11 +489,15 @@ Layout::choose_output_section(const Relo // Some flags in the input section should not be automatically // copied to the output section. flags &= ~ (elfcpp::SHF_INFO_LINK - | elfcpp::SHF_LINK_ORDER | elfcpp::SHF_GROUP | elfcpp::SHF_MERGE | elfcpp::SHF_STRINGS); + // We only clear the SHF_LINK_ORDER flag in for + // a non-relocatable link. + if (!parameters->options().relocatable()) + flags &= ~elfcpp::SHF_LINK_ORDER; + if (this->script_options_->saw_sections_clause()) { // We are using a SECTIONS clause, so the output section is
- Previous message (by thread): [GOLD][PATCH] Set SHF_LINK_ORDER flags of ARM EXIDX sections.
- Next message (by thread): [GOLD][PATCH] Set SHF_LINK_ORDER flags of ARM EXIDX sections.
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Binutils mailing list