1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
|
# REQUIRES: ppc
# RUN: llvm-mc -filetype=obj -triple=powerpc64le-unknown-linux %s -o %t.o
# RUN: ld.lld -shared %t.o -o %t.so
# RUN: llvm-objdump -d --no-show-raw-insn -r %t.so | FileCheck %s
# For a recursive call that is interposable the linker calls the plt-stub rather
# then calling the function directly. Since the call is through a plt stub and
# might be interposed with a different definition at runtime, a toc-restore is
# required to follow the call.
# The decision to use a plt-stub for the recursive call is not one I feel
# strongly about either way. It was done because it matches what bfd and gold do
# for recursive calls as well as keeps the logic for recursive calls consistent
# with non-recursive calls.
# CHECK-LABEL: 0000000000010290 <recursive_func>:
# CHECK: 102b8: bl 0x102e0
# CHECK-NEXT: ld 2, 24(1)
# CHECK-LABEL: 00000000000102e0 <__plt_recursive_func>:
.abiversion 2
.section ".text"
.p2align 2
.global recursive_func
.type recursive_func, @function
recursive_func:
.Lrf_gep:
addis 2, 12, .TOC.-.Lrf_gep@ha
addi 2, 2, .TOC.-.Lrf_gep@l
.localentry recursive_func, .-recursive_func
cmpldi 3, 2
blt 0, .Lend
mflr 0
std 0, 16(1)
stdu 1, -32(1)
addi 5, 3, -1
mulld 4, 4, 3
mr 3, 5
bl recursive_func
nop
mr 4, 3
addi 1, 1, 32
ld 0, 16(1)
mtlr 0
.Lend:
extsw 3, 4
blr
|
