TCB_SIZE is 2*sizeof(void *), which is 0x10 for lp64, and 0x8 for
ilp32. During relaxation, ld goes to do a replace:
bl __tls_get_addr => add R0, R0, TCB_SIZE
But actual implementation is:
bfd_putl32 (0x91004000, contents + rel->r_offset + 4);
Which is equivalent of add x0, x0, 0x10. This is wrong for ilp32.
The possible fix for it is:
bfd_putl32 (0x91000000 | (TCB_SIZE<<10), contents + rel->r_offset + 4);
But ilp32 also needs w-registers, so it's simpler to put proper
instruction in #if/#else condition.
There are 2 such relaxations in elfNN_aarch64_tls_relax(), and so 2 new
tests added for ilp32 mode to test it.
Yury
* bfd/elfnn-aarch64.c: fix TLS relaxations for ilp32 where
TCB_SIZE is used.
* ld/testsuite/ld-aarch64/aarch64-elf.exp: Add tests for the case.
* ld/testsuite/ld-aarch64/tls-relax-ld-le-small-ilp32.d: New file.
* ld/testsuite/ld-aarch64/tls-relax-ld-le-tiny-ilp32.d: New file.
Signed-off-by: Yury Norov <ynorov@caviumnetworks.com>
TCB_SIZE is 2*sizeof(void *), which is 0x10 for lp64, and 0x8 for
ilp32. During relaxation, ld goes to do a replace:
bl __tls_get_addr => add R0, R0, TCB_SIZE
But actual implementation is:
bfd_putl32 (0x91004000, contents + rel->r_offset + 4);
Which is equivalent of add x0, x0, 0x10. This is wrong for ilp32.
The possible fix for it is:
bfd_putl32 (0x91000000 | (TCB_SIZE<<10), contents + rel->r_offset + 4);
But ilp32 also needs w-registers, so it's simpler to put proper
instruction in #if/#else condition.
THere are 2 such relaxations in elfNN_aarch64_tls_relax(), and so 2 new
tests added for ilp32 mode to test it.
Yury
