[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJ86T=V8Pu54XX1waFQT7+w_Z_2TTuNQk4e6jRcGLvQZi9Q7ww@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 12:54:41 -0800
From: Andre McCurdy <armccurdy@...il.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm: avoid conditional branch to PLT in sigsetjmp.s
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 12:54 PM Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 10:52:13AM -0700, Andre McCurdy wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 7:29 AM Khem Raj <raj.khem@...il.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 11:04 PM Andre McCurdy <armccurdy@...il.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The R_ARM_THM_JUMP19 relocation type generated for the original code
> > > > when targeting Thumb 2 is not supported by the gold linker:
> > > >
> > > > | .../arm-oe-linux-musleabi/9.2.0/ld: error: conditional branch to PLT in THUMB-2 not supported yet.
> > > > | src/signal/arm/sigsetjmp.s:9: error: unexpected opcode while processing relocation R_ARM_THM_JUMP19
> > >
> > > if it is thumb2 specific another option could be to use `it eq` before
> > > beq which should turn branch into an unconditional branch, which then
> > > uses R_ARM_THM_JUMP24 relocation that has a range of 16MB.
> >
> > That would work too. Thumb 2 specific code would need to be guarded by
> > #ifdef __thumb2__ though (which I think implies also renaming the file
> > from .s to .S ?) and I'm not sure if the extra complexity justifies
> > saving one instruction in the ARM case.
>
> I don't think it does. Also, current style is not to use "it" at all,
> but rather -Wa,-mimplicit-it=always. I'm not sure if unified syntax
> accepts "it" in arm mode when the following insn has a matching
> condition suffix, but here it wouldn't I think...
Any issues with merging this now?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
