[ld] section address : ALIGN(align) and the maximum of input section alignments
Fangrui Song
i@maskray.me
Thu Mar 5 06:41:00 GMT 2020
More information about the Binutils mailing list
Thu Mar 5 06:41:00 GMT 2020
- Previous message (by thread): [ld] section address : ALIGN(align) and the maximum of input section alignments
- Next message (by thread): [ld] section address : ALIGN(align) and the maximum of input section alignments
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
For convenience, I will use some notations: max_input_align: maximum of input section alignments. addr_tree: output section address On 2020-03-04, Alan Modra wrote: >On Tue, Mar 03, 2020 at 10:39:45PM -0800, Fangrui Song wrote: >> The implementation is complex. For users to understand, I think it >> will be helpful to have something more detailed in >> https://sourceware.org/binutils/docs/ld/Output-Section-Address.html#Output-Section-Address >> >> If my understanding is correct >> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commit;h=233bf4f847b136705247e2f7f11bae41c72448a4 >> makes the output section address override sh_addralign computed from >> the maximum of input section alignments. > >Right. > >> So, generally the rules are: >> * The max of ALIGN and (the maximum of input section alignments) is taken. >> * The output section address overrides the above. If sh_addr % >> alignment != 0, set sh_addralign to the largest alignment that makes >> sh_addr%alignment=0 >> In this case, should the linker emit a warning? > >I don't think so. The input sections are still aligned within the >output section to their required alignment. > >> * ALIGN and the output section address cannot be specified at the same >> time. This is considered a linker script "undefined behavior". Users >> should not rely on a particular result. > >I'm not going to make that change for ld.bfd. I said it probably >would have been better if ALIGN for output section statements hadn't >been invented, but once there are users for a script feature it can't >be removed without a good reason. I take ALIGN as a way to overalign an output section. When ALIGN < max_input_align, do we agree that sh_addralign = max(ALIGN, max_input_align) = max_input_align ? When both addr_tree and ALIGN are specified (what I called "undefined behavior"), and addr_tree is misaligned, sh_addralign can be decreased from max(ALIGN,max_input_align) to (addr_tree|max(ALIGN,max_input_align)) & -(addr_tree|max(ALIGN,max_input_align)) Commit 233bf4f847b136705247e2f7f11bae41c72448a4 is made so that "The value of sh_addr must be congruent to 0, modulo the value of sh_addralign." is obeyed. Another view is that the user intentionally breaks the ELF rule. We can keep sh_addralign as max(ALIGN,max_input_align) and emit a warning along the line of: warning: address (0x10010) of section .foo is not a multiple of alignment (32) >> --warn-section-align may be out of place. It can be noisy for normal >> output section descriptions like .foo : ALIGN(16) { ... } without >> a preceding dot advancing to a multiple of 16. /* Without this assignment, the ALIGN(16) below will likely report a warning */ . = ALIGN(16); .foo : ALIGN(16) { ... } Does this suggest that --warn-section-align is not very useful? Keep reading. >It's even more noisy when relaxation is enabled.. https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2020-03/msg00107.html does not fix the --warn-section-align version of PR25570. # My original example. cat > a.s <<e .globl _start; _start: ret .section .data.rel.ro,"aw"; .balign 8; .byte 0 .data; .byte 0 .section .data2,"aw"; .balign 8; .byte 0 .bss; .balign 32; .byte 0 e as a.s -o a.o % ./ld-new a.o -o a --warn-section-align ./ld-new: warning: start of section .got changed by 7 ./ld-new: warning: start of section .got.plt changed by 7 ./ld-new: warning: start of section .data2 changed by 6 ./ld-new: warning: start of section .bss changed by 23 ./ld-new: warning: start of section .data.rel.ro changed by 4088 ./ld-new: warning: start of section .got changed by 4088 ./ld-new: warning: start of section .got.plt changed by 4088 ./ld-new: warning: start of section .data2 changed by 4096 ./ld-new: warning: start of section .bss changed by 4096 ./ld-new: warning: start of section .rela.dyn changed by 56 ./ld-new: warning: start of section .rela.plt changed by 56 ./ld-new: warning: start of section .data.rel.ro changed by -4088 ./ld-new: warning: start of section .got changed by -4088 ./ld-new: warning: start of section .got.plt changed by -4088 ./ld-new: warning: start of section .data2 changed by -4096 ./ld-new: warning: start of section .bss changed by -4096 ./ld-new: warning: start of section .data.rel.ro changed by 4088 ./ld-new: warning: start of section .got changed by 4088 ./ld-new: warning: start of section .got.plt changed by 4088 ./ld-new: warning: start of section .data2 changed by 4096 ./ld-new: warning: start of section .bss changed by 4096 This also demonstrates how annoying --warn-section-align can be.
- Previous message (by thread): [ld] section address : ALIGN(align) and the maximum of input section alignments
- Next message (by thread): [ld] section address : ALIGN(align) and the maximum of input section alignments
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Binutils mailing list