[JITLink] Include target addend in out-of-range error #145423
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
aaupov
approved these changes
Jun 23, 2025
When JITLink reports an out-of-range error, the underlying reason could be hidden from the user if it's due to an excessively large target addend. Add non-zero target addend to the message for clarity.
maksfb
force-pushed
the
gh-fix-jitlink-error-message
branch
from
1b8b6f8 to
1417046
Compare
|
This is a nice improvement. With the proposed message the reader still needs to do the target-symbol + addend arithmetic to arrive at the actual out-of- ErrStream << "In graph " << G.getName() << ", section " << Sec.getName()
<< ": relocation target "
<< formatv("{0:x}", E.getTarget().getAddress() + E.getAddend())
<< "(";
if (E.getTarget().hasName())
ErrStream << E.getTarget().getName();
else
ErrStream << "<anonymous symbol>";
if (E.getAddend()) {
// Target address includes non-zero added, so break down the arithmetic.
ErrStream << formatv(":{0:x}", E.getTarget().getAddress()) << " + addend"
<< formatv(":{0:x}", E.getAddend());
}
ErrStream << ") is out of range of " << G.getEdgeKindName(E.getKind())
<< " at address " << formatv("{0:x}", E.getTarget().getAddress());So error messages would look like: "In graph foo.o, section __text: relocation target 0x10000000 (main) is out of range..." |
|
Sounds good. I placed "addend" in "<>" to avoid confusion with regular symbol names. |
lhames
approved these changes
Jun 24, 2025
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actually now that I look at it I like your initial version where the addend was anonymous:
(main:0x10000000 + 0x1000) -- it's not meaningful to add symbol addresses, so I automatically read the second part as an addend.
If you want to drop the 'addend' bit go for it, but LGTM either way.
Thanks for working on this!
This reverts commit b03845c.
|
LLVM Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder Full details are available at: https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/186/builds/10137 Here is the relevant piece of the build log for the reference |
DrSergei
pushed a commit
to DrSergei/llvm-project
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 24, 2025
When JITLink reports an out-of-range error, the underlying reason could be hidden from the user if it's due to an excessively large target addend. Add non-zero target addend to the message for clarity.
anthonyhatran
pushed a commit
to anthonyhatran/llvm-project
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 26, 2025
When JITLink reports an out-of-range error, the underlying reason could be hidden from the user if it's due to an excessively large target addend. Add non-zero target addend to the message for clarity.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
When JITLink reports an out-of-range error, the underlying reason could be hidden from the user if it's due to an excessively large target addend. Add non-zero target addend to the message for clarity.