================
@@ -1015,8 +1063,20 @@ void LoongArch::finalizeRelax(int passes) const {
r.expr = r.sym->hasFlag(NEEDS_PLT) ? R_PLT_PC : R_PC;
break;
case R_LARCH_B26:
+ case R_LARCH_TLS_LE_LO12_R:
+ skip = 4;
+ write32le(p, aux.writes[writesIdx++]);
+ break;
+ case R_LARCH_TLS_GD_PCREL20_S2:
+ // Note: R_LARCH_TLS_LD_PCREL20_S2 must also use R_TLSGD_PC instead
+ // of R_TLSLD_PC because the processing of relocation
+ // R_LARCH_TLS_LD_PC_HI20 is the same as R_LARCH_TLS_GD_PC_HI20. If
----------------
xen0n wrote:
> Thanks for your review. I will revise it to the following description. Do you
> think it is clear?
>
> ```
> Note: R_LARCH_TLS_LD_PCREL20_S2 must also use R_TLSGD_PC instead
> of R_TLSLD_PC due to historical reasons. In fact, TLSLD is not fully supported
> on LoongArch. We need to handle relocation of R_LARCH_TLS_LD_PC_HI20
> as equivalent to R_LARCH_TLS_GD_PC_HI20.
>
> This reason has also been mentioned in mold commit:
> https://github.com/rui314/mold/commit/5dfa1cf07c03bd57cb3d493b652ef22441bcd71c
> ```
"In fact, right now TLS LD behaves exactly like GD on LoongArch." is enough,
and the "We need to ..." sentence can be omitted this way.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/123600
_______________________________________________
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
