llvm dev - Oct 2011 - [LLVMdev] Typo in IsLegalToCallImmediateAddr?

Rafael,

I believe MachO can't represent this relocation, even in non-PIC mode.
On my Mac, I tried compiling "call 256". I got:

in section __TEXT,__text reloc 0: R_ABS reloc but no absolute symbol
at target address

I believe the correct thing to do is:

isTargetELF() && TM.getRelocationModel() == Reloc::Static

This will do the right thing on ELF, and the right thing on other
formats. This may have been the original intent.

- pdox

2011/10/21 David Meyer <pdox at google.com>>
Rafael,
>
> I believe MachO can't represent this relocation, even in non-PIC mode.
> On my Mac, I tried compiling "call 256". I got:
I think PIC is just the default (the kernel being non-PIC for
example), but I am not sure.
> in section __TEXT,__text reloc 0: R_ABS reloc but no absolute symbol
> at target address
>
> I believe the correct thing to do is:
>
> isTargetELF() && TM.getRelocationModel() == Reloc::Static
>
> This will do the right thing on ELF, and the right thing on other
> formats. This may have been the original intent.
Could be, echristo, bigcheese, would this be correct for Mach-O and COFF?
> - pdox
>
Cheers,
Rafael

> Could be, echristo, bigcheese, would this be correct for Mach-O and COFF?
bigcheese noted on IRC that the test crashes the COFF emitter. For some 
reason I am always getting

	movl	$256, %eax              ## imm = 0x100
	calll	*%eax

on darwin already, so I guess you are right, the correct would be

  isTargetELF() && TM.getRelocationModel() == Reloc::Static;


Please include a test with the commit :-)

Cheers,
Rafael