Assertion fails resolving R_X86_64_PC32 relocation

Hi llvm-community,

I use llc (3.4-final) to generate object file:

llc code.bc -mtriple=x86_64-pc-win32-elf -mcpu=x86-64 -filetype=obj -code-model=large -o=code.o

then I load it with RuntimeDyld + SectionMemoryManager in my app.

I faced the problem described in 15356 bug. Debug assertion fails at /lib/ExecutionEngine/RuntimeDyld/RuntimeDyldELF.cpp:273.
I noticed that R_X86_64_PC32 relocations are used only within .eh_frame section. Why aren’t R_X86_64_64 relocations used in that case?

Is there any working solution of this problem?

Thank you in advance.

I ran into a similar error a while back and it turned out to be user error on my part. I had relocated some of the sections in the object file, but not others. As a result, I'd ended up with one (unrelocated) section with a reference to another (relocated) section which was more than 32 bits away. You may want to double check your memory layout. What caught my eye about your question was that ".eh_frame" was one of the sections in question for me too.


I would think that the R_X86_64_PC32 relocation type should never be generated with large code model since large code model, by definition, makes no assumptions about the size or address of sections. The use of win32-elf might throw a wrinkle into this, since that is a code path that probably isn’t exercised much outside of MCJIT use.

That said, when this assertion fails it is usually because of an implementation problem such as Philip describes.

In theory, when the memory manager allocates memory the address of any two blocks allocated can come back with arbitrarily distant addresses. The only way to guarantee that the address of two sections will never be more than 2 GB apart is to allocate a single block to hold the memory for both sections. Some changes were proposed recently to allow this with custom memory managers, but I don’t know if the changes have been committed.

In practice, unless some kind of address randomization tool is being used the default memory manager will allocate all blocks within close proximity to one another very nearly all the time, particularly on x86-based Linux systems. As such, if you are seeing this kind of failure consistently it probably does mean that the sections in question got their addresses in different ways.

Can you reproduce the problem using lli or llvm-rtdyld?


Thanks for your answers.

First of all I made mistake saying that R_X86_64_PC32 relocations are used only within .eh_frame section in my case. Calls to __chkstk routine are resolved with R_X86_64_PC32 relocations.
Here is the quote from applied to my elf-file llvm-objdump -r output:

349485 R_X86_64_64 .rodata.str1.16+6000
349518 R_X86_64_64 CHECK_DINT_RANGE@CRT+0
349605 R_X86_64_64 memcpy+0
349671 R_X86_64_PC32 __chkstk-4-P
349691 R_X86_64_64 memcpy+0
349701 R_X86_64_64 .rodata+4400
349800 R_X86_64_64 .rodata.str1.16+6048

Corresponding assembly output for this __chkstk call:

.cfi_def_cfa_offset 72
movabs rax, 4216
call __chkstk
sub rsp, rax

For example, memcpy is called indirectly:

movabs rax, memcpy
movabs rdx, .L.cdata421770
mov r8d, 2308
call rax

In my case, the calculated distance to the __chkstk does not fit into 32bit. This is observed under Windows 8.1 only. I found the discussion of __chkstk/Win64 issue: But I didn’t understand why the problem was not fixed, if it really is a bug.

As for memory manager it behaves as Andrew said. It allocates memory blocks very nearly one to another, so using of R_X86_64_PC32 relocations within .eh_frame section (inside one module) makes no problem.

That I also noticed, __chkstk is called in case when block size is 4216 bytes whereas Microsoft says ( about 8K limit of stack block size for using __chkstk.


I’ve also found that there is appropriate bug report on the bug-tracker-

After applying the patch proposed by Marina Yatsina (!topic/llvm-commit/htNjwbWsNe8) the problem has gone. Indirect call of __chkstk via 64-bit register is used in that case so the relocation of R_X86_64_64 type is used now.

I would suggest it to resume that discussion and commit appropriate changes.

The question of the code model was raised. Anton Korobeynikov wrote:

call to chkstk should behave the same way as all other
calls. So, it will be pcrel32 in small, kernel and medium code models.
And indirect in large.

All MSVC epilogs contain pcrel32 call to local __chkstk, not imported one. As for object loaded with RuntimeDyld+SectionMemoryManager, we cannot guarantee that the distance to the host process’ __chkstk will be less than 2GB (in my case it is more than 2GB). Thus small or medium code model aren’t safe. I believe PIC relocation model won’t also help. So the large code model with indirect r64 calls is required for dynamically loaded code. What do you think about it?

Thanks for your help!

Best regards,

P.S. I’ve attached the latest version of Marina’s patch for convenience.

Win64CallCheckStackLLVMTrunk.patch (8.16 KB)