> On Sep 21, 2017, at 1:26 PM, Saleem Abdulrasool via swift-dev > <swift-dev@swift.org> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Joe Groff <jgr...@apple.com > <mailto:jgr...@apple.com>> wrote: > > >> On Sep 21, 2017, at 11:49 AM, Saleem Abdulrasool <compn...@compnerd.org >> <mailto:compn...@compnerd.org>> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Joe Groff <jgr...@apple.com >> <mailto:jgr...@apple.com>> wrote: >> >> >>> On Sep 21, 2017, at 9:32 AM, Saleem Abdulrasool via swift-dev >>> <swift-dev@swift.org <mailto:swift-dev@swift.org>> wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> The current layout for the swift metadata for structure types, as emitted, >>> seems to be unrepresentable in PE/COFF (at least for x86_64). There is a >>> partial listing of the generated code following the message for reference. >>> >>> When building the standard library, LLVM encounters a relocation which >>> cannot be represented. Tracking down the relocation led to the type >>> metadata for SwiftNSOperatingSystemVersion. The metadata here is >>> _T0SC30_SwiftNSOperatingSystemVersionVN. At +32-bytes we find the Kind >>> (1). So, this is a struct metadata type. Thus at Offset 1 (+40 bytes) we >>> have the nominal type descriptor reference. This is the relocation which >>> we fail to represent correctly. If I'm not mistaken, it seems that the >>> field is supposed to be a relative offset to the nominal type descriptor. >>> However, currently, the nominal type descriptor is emitted in a different >>> section (.rodata) as opposed to the type descriptor (.data). This >>> cross-section relocation cannot be represented in the file format. >>> >>> My understanding is that the type metadata will be adjusted during the load >>> for the field offsets. Furthermore, my guess is that the relative offset >>> is used to encode the location to avoid a relocation for the load address >>> base. In the case of windows, the based relocations are a given, and I'm >>> not sure if there is a better approach to be taken. There are a couple of >>> solutions which immediately spring to mind: moving the nominal type >>> descriptor into the (RW) data segment and the other is to adjust the ABI to >>> use an absolute relocation which would be rebased. Given that the type >>> metadata may be adjusted means that we cannot emit it into the RO data >>> segment. Is there another solution that I am overlooking which may be >>> simpler or better? >> >> IIRC, this came up when someone was trying to port Swift to Windows on ARM >> as well, and they were able to conditionalize the code so that we used >> absolute pointers on Windows/ARM, and we may have to do the same on Windows >> in general. It may be somewhat more complicated on Win64 since we generally >> assume that relative references can be 32-bit, whereas an absolute reference >> will be 64-bit, so some formats may have to change layout to make this work >> too. I believe Windows' executable loader still ultimately maps the final PE >> image contiguously, so alternatively, you could conceivably build a Swift >> toolchain that used ELF or Mach-O or some other format with better support >> for PIC as the intermediate object format and still linked a final PE >> executable. Using relative references should still be a win on Windows both >> because of the size benefit of being 32-bit and the fact that they don't >> need to be slid when running under ASLR or when a DLL needs to be rebased. >> >> >> Yeah, I tracked down the relativePointer thing. There is a nice subtle >> little warning that it is not fully portable :-). Would you happen to have >> a pointer to where the adjustment for the absolute pointers on WoA is? >> >> You are correct that the image should be contiugously mapped on Windows. >> The idea of MachO as an intermediatary is rather intriguing. Thinking >> longer term, maybe we want to use that as a global solution? It would also >> provide a nicer autolinking mechanism for ELF which is the one target which >> currently is missing this functionality. However, if Im not mistaken, this >> would require a MachO linker (and the only current viable MachO linker would >> be ld64). The MachO binary would then need to be converted into ELF or >> COFF. This seems like it could take a while to implement though, but would >> not really break ABI, so pushing that off to later may be wise. > > Intriguingly, LLVM does support `*-*-win32-macho` as a target triple already, > though I don't know what Mach-O to PE linker (if any) that's intended to be > used with. We implemented relative references using current-position-relative > offsets for Darwin and Linux both because that still allows for a fairly > convenient pointer-like C++ API for working with relative offsets, and > because the established toolchains on those platforms already have to support > PIC so had most of the relocations we needed to make them work already; is > there another base we could use for relative offsets on Windows that would > fit in the set of relocations supported by standard COFF linkers? > > > Yes, the `-windows-macho` target is used for UEFI :-). The MachO binary is > translated later to PE/COFF as required by the UEFI specification. > > There are only two relocation types which can be used for relative > displacements: __ImageBase relative (IMAGE_REL_*_ADDR32NB) and section > relative (IMAGE_REL_*_SECREL) which are relative to the beginning of the > section. The latter is why I mentioned that moving them into the same > section could be a solution as that would allow the relative distance to be > encoded. Unfortunately, the section relative relocation is relative to the > section within which the symbol is.
What's wrong with IMAGE_REL_AMD64_REL32? We'd have to adjust the relative-pointer logic to store an offset from the end of the relative pointer instead of the beginning, but it doesn't seem to have a section requirement. John.
_______________________________________________ swift-dev mailing list swift-dev@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-dev
