andcarminati wrote: > As far as I can tell this is pointless. If you want relaxation you need > R_RISCV_RELAX and R_RISC_ALIGN relocations to be emitted. If you don't want > relaxation you don't need these. Therefore it seems like all this does is > emit a whole bunch of useless relocations for the case when you're not > enabling relaxation at compile time and thus cannot possibly enable it at > link time?
Hi @jrtc27, thank you for your comment, understood your point. For relaxation, I think we need also the branch relocation/anything relative, as we are removing some lui instructions. My original idea was based on the case that relaxation is a default ON feature for RISCV, but I honestly don't know the use cases to disable it. Just to follow the discussion, I can consider the following use case: clang [...] -c -o myobject.o (just compile) clang [...] my0bject.o -o myobject.elf -mno-relax (linking) In this case, myobject.elf will be relaxed, the -mno-relax will be silently ignored. Maybe we have two different things to handle. Regards. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/73793 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
