https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=31213
George Rimar <gri...@accesssoftek.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX --- Comment #15 from George Rimar <gri...@accesssoftek.com> --- (In reply to comment #11) > Something is still not quite right and linking the FreeBSD bootloaders with > that change does not work for me, although George reported success. Yes, minimal scenario from this PR as well as building+linking complete source of usr/src/sys/boot/efi/boot1 loader is fixed for me with https://reviews.freebsd.org/D8681 applied. Tested in a next way: root@freebsd:/usr/src/sys/boot/efi/boot1 make clean make objcopy \ -j .peheader -j .text -j .sdata -j .data \ -j .dynamic -j .dynsym -j .rel.dyn \ -j .rela.dyn -j .reloc -j .eh_frame \ --output-target=efi-app-x86_64 boot1.sym.full loader.efi now loader.efi is workable. Though I still observe issue with objcopy call from original makefile: objcopy --only-keep-debug boot1.sym.full boot1.sym.debug BFD: boot1.sym.debug: section `.dynsym' can't be allocated in segment 4 objcopy: boot1.sym.debug: Bad value BFD: boot1.sym.debug: section `.dynsym' can't be allocated in segment 4 objcopy: boot1.sym.debug: Bad value *** Error code 1 That issue can be fixed with passing -N to linker and after that result boot1.efi also works for me. (In reply to comment #12) > Ah, yes. That is an oddity of ld.bfd I had noticed before. If we can fix the > freebsd code instead of implementing the same oddity in ld.lld that would be > awesome. > Yep, I also noticed that earlier. I just do not think it is an oddity only of bfd, I think gold also do that since loader linked from source still has many left relocations, what means not all of them were relaxed and looks it "worked" because of the same reasons. (though I did not re-check) That is why I at first I supposed we might want to do the same, but did not find anything in ABI or somewhere else about storing addends in relocation targets. I am closing this, since this one issue does not requires fixing on LLD side and we can open separate PR for others if any. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________ llvm-bugs mailing list llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs