aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/bfd/elfxx-riscv.h
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorNelson Chu <nelson@rivosinc.com>2023-12-20 10:37:41 +0800
committerNelson Chu <nelson@rivosinc.com>2023-12-28 14:51:50 +0800
commit73d931e560059a87d76f528fafbb4270a98746bc (patch)
tree883363ffef6b021b3b1f78c7bee36dd5b6f1f095 /bfd/elfxx-riscv.h
parent64e34e4134edb8a763ecfced808d2bb796796a15 (diff)
downloadgdb-73d931e560059a87d76f528fafbb4270a98746bc.zip
gdb-73d931e560059a87d76f528fafbb4270a98746bc.tar.gz
gdb-73d931e560059a87d76f528fafbb4270a98746bc.tar.bz2
RISC-V: PR31179, The SET/ADD/SUB fix breaks ABI compatibility with 2.41 objects
* Problematic fix commit, 2029e13917d53d2289d3ebb390c4f40bd2112d21 RISC-V: Clarify the behaviors of SET/ADD/SUB relocations * Bugzilla, https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31179#c5 The addend of SUB_ULEB128 should be zero if using .uleb128, but we make it non-zero by accident in assembler before. This causes troubles by applying the above commit, since the calculation is changed to support .reloc *SUB* relocations with non-zero addend. We encourage people to rebuild their stuff to get the non-zero addend of SUB_ULEB128, but that might need some times, so report warnings to inform people need to rebuild their stuff if --check-uleb128 is enabled. Since the failed .reloc cases for ADD/SET/SUB/ULEB128 are rarely to use, it may acceptable that stop supproting them until people rebuld their stuff, maybe half-year or a year later. Or maybe we should teach people that don't write the .reloc R_RISCV_SUB* with non-zero constant, and then report warnings/errors in assembler. bfd/ * elfnn-riscv.c (perform_relocation): Ignore the non-zero addend of R_RISCV_SUB_ULEB128. (riscv_elf_relocate_section): Report warnings to inform people need to rebuild their stuff if --check-uleb128 is enabled. So that can get the right non-zero addend of R_RISCV_SUB_ULEB128. * elfxx-riscv.h (struct riscv_elf_params): Added bool check_uleb128. ld/ * NEWS: Updated. * emultempl/riscvelf.em: Added linker risc-v target options, --[no-]check-uleb128, to enable/disable checking if the addend of uleb128 is non-zero or not. So that people will know they need to rebuild the objects with binutils 2.42 and up, to get the right zero addend of SUB_ULEB128 relocation, or they may get troubles if using .reloc. * ld/testsuite/ld-riscv-elf/ld-riscv-elf.exp: Updated. * ld/testsuite/ld-riscv-elf/pr31179*: New test cases.
Diffstat (limited to 'bfd/elfxx-riscv.h')
-rw-r--r--bfd/elfxx-riscv.h2
1 files changed, 2 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/bfd/elfxx-riscv.h b/bfd/elfxx-riscv.h
index abcb409..6df2471 100644
--- a/bfd/elfxx-riscv.h
+++ b/bfd/elfxx-riscv.h
@@ -31,6 +31,8 @@ struct riscv_elf_params
{
/* Whether to relax code sequences to GP-relative addressing. */
bool relax_gp;
+ /* Whether to check if SUB_ULEB128 relocation has non-zero addend. */
+ bool check_uleb128;
};
extern void riscv_elf32_set_options (struct bfd_link_info *,