In PGO, a C++ external linkage function `foo` has a private counter
`__profc_foo` and a private `__profd_foo` in a `comdat nodeduplicate`.
A `__attribute__((weak))` function `foo` has a weak hidden counter `__profc_foo`
and a private `__profd_foo` in a `comdat nodeduplicate`.
In `ld.lld a.o b.o`, say a.o defines an external linkage `foo` and b.o
defines a weak `foo`. Currently we treat `comdat nodeduplicate` as `comdat any`,
ld.lld will incorrectly consider `b.o:__profc_foo` non-prevailing. In the worst
case when `b.o:__profd_foo` is retained and `b.o:__profc_foo` isn't, there will
be dangling reference causing an `undefined hidden symbol` error.
Add SelectionKind to `Comdat` in IRSymtab and let linkers ignore nodeduplicate comdat.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106228
Change the representation of COFF comdats so that a COFF linker
is able to accurately resolve comdats between IR and native object
files. Specifically, apply name mangling to comdat names consistently
with native object files, and do not export comdats with an internal
leader because they do not affect symbol resolution.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40278
llvm-svn: 318805
Start using it in LLD to avoid needing to read bitcode again just to get the
target triple, and in llvm-lto2 to avoid printing symbol table information
that is inappropriate for the target.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32038
llvm-svn: 300300
Summary:
The linker needs to be able to determine whether a symbol is text or data to
handle the case of a common being overridden by a strong definition in an
archive. If the archive contains a text member of the same name as the common,
that function is discarded. However, if the archive contains a data member of
the same name, that strong definition overrides the common. This is a behavior
of ld.bfd, which the Qualcomm linker also supports in LTO.
Here's a test case to illustrate:
####
cat > 1.c << \!
int blah;
!
cat > 2.c << \!
int blah() {
return 0;
}
!
cat > 3.c << \!
int blah = 20;
!
clang -c 1.c
clang -c 2.c
clang -c 3.c
ar cr lib.a 2.o 3.o
ld 1.o lib.a -t
####
The correct output is:
1.o
(lib.a)3.o
Thanks to Shankar Easwaran and Hemant Kulkarni for the test case!
Reviewers: mehdi_amini, rafael, pcc, davide
Reviewed By: pcc
Subscribers: davide, llvm-commits, inglorion
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31901
llvm-svn: 300205
Fangrui Song