[llvm-dev] LLD: creating linker-generated sections as input sections instead of output sections

Eugene Leviant via llvm-dev
2016-10-19T09:37:24Z

I would suggest converting only part of linker generated sections to
input sections to reduce amount of code changes.
For example it's unlikely that SymbolTableSection or
StringTableSection would ever require such treatment, so why
converting them to input sections?


2016-10-19 11:03 GMT+03:00 George Rimar <grimar at
accesssoftek.com>:
>>This idea popped up in the review thread for
>> https://reviews.llvm.org/D25627.
>
>>
>>Problem:
>>
>>Currently, LLD creates special sections that are not just concatenations
of
>> input sections but need link-time data generation, such as .got, .plt,
>> interp, .mips.options, >etc., as output sections. We have
OutputSectionBase
>> subclasses (e.g. GotSection, PltSection, etc.) to create data. Even
though
>> this scheme works in most cases, >there are a few situations that
doesn't
>> work well as you may have noticed. Here are a issues.
>>
>  >- You cannot mix special sections with other types of sections.
>>
>>  For example, using linker scripts, you can instruct the linker put
>> mergeable sections and non-mergeable sections into the same output
section.
>> Such script makes >sense. However, LLD cannot handle such script
because
>> string merging is the special mergeable output section's feature.
The output
>> section doesn't know how to >handle other types of sections, so
you cannot
>> feed non-mergeable sections to a mergeable output section.
>>
>> - It cannot handle linker scripts like this as pointed by Eugene.
>>
>>  .got { *(.got.plt) *(.got) }
>>
>>   In our current architecture, .got section is an output section, so it
>> cannot be added to other output section. There's no clean way to
handle this
>> linker script.
>>
>>Proposal:
>>
>>Here's my idea: how about creating all special sections as input
sections
>> instead of output sections?
>>
>>GotSection, PltSection, etc. will be subclasses of InputSection that
don't
>> have corresponding input files. What they will do remain the same. They
will
>> be added to >OutputSections just like other regular sections are
added. I
>> think we could simplify OutputSection a lot -- OutputSection will
probably
>> become a dumb container >that just concatenates all input sections.
>>
>>This approach would solve the problems described above. Now that we
create
>> .got as an special input section with ".got" as a name, so
they can
>> naturally be added >to any output section. String merging occurs
inside a
>> special mergeable input section, so they can be added to any section,
too.
>>
>>So, I think by moving the implementations from OutputSection to
>> InputSection, we can solve many problems. I do not think of any obvious
>> problem with the >approach.
>>
>>What do you think?
>
> For me that sounds as interesting idea. My consern and guess that amount of
> code changes can be really large for that.
> But generally I so not see real problems with this approach too.
>
> George.
>