Re: [PATCH v3 binutils] Add BPF support to binutils...

On 4/29/17 7:13 PM, David Miller wrote:

From: Alexei Starovoitov <redacted>
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 17:48:43 -0700

quoted

/w/binutils-gdb/bld/binutils/objdump: invalid relocation type 10
/w/binutils-gdb/bld/binutils/objdump: Dwarf Error: found address size

I discussed this in another email, the relocation numbers I used in
binutils do not match what is in LLVM currently.

In fact, I thought you guys weren't using relocations in any capacity
at all so just picked things from scratch :-)

yeah :) will reply in the other thread.
Too many public and internal discussions in the last week.
Weekend is the only time to reduce the backlog :)

Please use "--target=bpf-elf"

Thanks. That worked. Built the whole thing :)

objdump behaves the same way.
When compiled by clang with '-g'
(gdb) x/10i bpf_prog1
   0x0 <clang version 5.0.0 (trunk 301652) (llvm/trunk 301662)>: ldimm64	r0, 590618314553
   0x10 <clang version 5.0.0 (trunk 301652) (llvm/trunk 301662)+16>: stdw	[r1+65528], r10
   0x18 <clang version 5.0.0 (trunk 301652) (llvm/trunk 301662)+24>: lddw	r10, [r1+65528]
   0x20 <clang version 5.0.0 (trunk 301652) (llvm/trunk 301662)+32>: add	r0, -1879113726
   0x28 <clang version 5.0.0 (trunk 301652) (llvm/trunk 301662)+40>: lddw	r1, [r0+0]
   0x30 <clang version 5.0.0 (trunk 301652) (llvm/trunk 301662)+48>:	exit
   0x38:	Cannot access memory at address 0x38

Even without -g the last line 'Cannot access' is printed.
It seems gdb miscalculates the total func size?
The printing of 'clang version...' is due to '-g'.
Without -g it looks good:
(gdb) x/10i bpf_prog1
   0x0 <bpf_prog1>:	ldimm64	r1, 590618314553
   0x10 <bpf_prog1+16>:	stdw	[r10+65528], r1

Btw, I'm using this C file for testing:
int bpf_prog1(void *ign)
{
  volatile unsigned long t = 0x8983984739ull;
  return *(unsigned long *)((0xffffffff8fff0002ull) + t);
}

There was a bug in llvm backend with imm overflow which
was recently fixed.