[swift-dev] Relative Pointers and Windows ARM

[Tom Birch]

Would it be acceptable to make relative pointers optional, so we can pay
the extra load-time cost on platforms where it's hard/undesirable to
implement them?

cheers,
Tom

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 9:51 AM Joe Groff via swift-dev <swift-dev at swift.org>
wrote:

>
> > On May 18, 2016, at 6:01 PM, Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd at compnerd.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, May 18, 2016, Joe Groff <jgroff at apple.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On May 18, 2016, at 1:51 PM, Saleem Abdulrasool via swift-dev <
> swift-dev at swift.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > It seems that there are assumptions about the ability to create
> relative address across sections which doesn't seem possible on Windows ARM.
> > >
> > > Consider the following swift code:
> > >
> > > final class _ContiguousArrayStorage<Element> { }
> > >
> > > When compiled for Windows x86 (via swiftc -c -target i686-windows
> -parse-as-library -parse-stdlib -module-name Swift -o Swift.obj
> reduced.swift) it will generate the metadata pattern as:
> > >
> > >     __TMPCs23_ContiguousArrayStorage:
> > >       ...
> > >       .long
> __TMnCs23_ContiguousArrayStorage-(__MPCs23_ContiguousArrayStorage+128)
> > >       ...
> > >
> > > This generates a IMAGE_REL_I386_REL32 relocation which is the 32-bit
> relative displacement of the target.
> > >
> > > On Windows ARM (swiftc -c -target i686-windows -parse-pas-library
> -parse-stdlib -module-name Swift -o Swift.obj reduced.swift) it will
> generate similar assembly:
> > >
> > >     _TMPCs23_ContiguousArrayStorage:
> > >       ...
> > >       .long
> _TMnCs23_ContiguousArrayStorage-(_MPCs23_ContiguousArrayStorage+128)
> > >       ...
> > >
> > > However, this generates an IMAGE_REL_ARM_ADDR32 relocation which is
> the 32-bit VA of the target.  If the symbol are in the same section, it is
> possible to get a relative value.  However, I don't really see a way to
> generate a relative offset across sections.  There is no relocation in the
> COFF ARM specification which provides the 32-bit relative displacement of
> the target.  There are 20, 23, and 24 bit relative displacements designed
> specifically for branch instructions, but none that would operate on
> generic data.
> > >
> > > Is there a good way to address this ABI issue?  Or perhaps do we need
> something more invasive to support such targets?  Now, I might be
> completely overlooking something simple that I didn't consider, so pointing
> that out would be greatly appreciated as well.
> >
> > That's unfortunate. One possibly-crazy solution would be to use a
> different object format that does support the necessary relocations, such
> as LLVM's win32-macho target. That would forgo interoperability with
> non-LLVM toolchains, of course
> >
> > Yeah, it would make interoperability harder.  But, is there a loader for
> macho on Windows?
>
> Sorry, if it wasn't clear, I meant that you could use mach-o (or ELF, or
> any object format really) for .o and .a files. You'd still link them into
> PE executables and DLLs.
>
> -Joe
> _______________________________________________
> swift-dev mailing list
> swift-dev at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-dev/attachments/20160519/f140a632/attachment.html>