-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 15.2k
[profile] Use base+vaddr for __llvm_write_binary_ids note pointers
#114907
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ | ||
| // REQUIRES: linux | ||
| // | ||
| // Make sure the build-id can be found in both EXEC and DYN (PIE) files, | ||
| // even when the note's section-start is forced to a weird address. | ||
| // (The DYN case would also apply to libraries, not explicitly tested here.) | ||
|
|
||
| // DEFINE: %{cflags} = | ||
| // DEFINE: %{check} = ( \ | ||
| // DEFINE: %clang_profgen -Wl,--build-id -o %t %s %{cflags} && \ | ||
| // DEFINE: env LLVM_PROFILE_FILE=%t.profraw %run %t && \ | ||
| // DEFINE: llvm-readelf --notes %t && \ | ||
| // DEFINE: llvm-profdata show --binary-ids %t.profraw \ | ||
| // DEFINE: ) | FileCheck %s | ||
|
|
||
| // REDEFINE: %{cflags} = -no-pie | ||
| // RUN: %{check} | ||
|
|
||
| // REDEFINE: %{cflags} = -pie -fPIE | ||
| // RUN: %{check} | ||
|
|
||
| // REDEFINE: %{cflags} = -no-pie -Wl,--section-start=.note.gnu.build-id=0x1000000 | ||
| // RUN: %{check} | ||
|
|
||
| // REDEFINE: %{cflags} = -pie -fPIE -Wl,--section-start=.note.gnu.build-id=0x1000000 | ||
| // RUN: %{check} | ||
|
|
||
| // CHECK-LABEL{LITERAL}: .note.gnu.build-id | ||
| // CHECK: Build ID: [[ID:[0-9a-f]+]] | ||
|
|
||
| // CHECK-LABEL{LITERAL}: Binary IDs: | ||
| // CHECK-NEXT: [[ID]] | ||
|
|
||
| int main() { return 0; } |
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I may need to clarify: this is close to the former
ElfHeader + p_vaddr, but in the case of non-PIE, the vaddr already includes the fixed base address. TheBasecomputation above works either way since it's finding the difference between the runtime address and the header's vaddr, so it's just 0 for non-PIE.Also, I don't think the code was ever reaching the old
elsecase at all. At least in all the files I looked at,p_fileszandp_memszwere always the same, so we would always be in the "examining notes in file" case.