Re: [PATCH] tools/nolibc: sh: enter _start_c with jsr instead of bsr
From: Willy Tarreau
Date: Fri Oct 23 2026 - 01:11:19 EST
Hi guys,
On Thu, Oct 22, 2026 at 06:12:27PM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> Hi Daniel!
>
> On 2026-10-22 19:01:59+0900, Daniel Palmer wrote:
> > bsr has limited displacement and cannot reach _start_c if its
> > more than +/-4KiB away.
> >
> > This starts to show up if you have big programs (static binary
> > of the game Quake in my case) and/or use LTO and things get moved
> > around.
>
> That is certainly a usecase that justifies making the two other SH4
> nolibc users' binaries a bit larger :-)
Indeed!
> > Replace bsr with a calculation of the effective address of
> > _start_c and jsr.
> >
> > Tested on QEMU and real SH4 and SH4a machines.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Palmer <daniel@xxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >
> > I'm no SuperH asm expert but this works for me. :)
> > Maybe there is a way in C to get _start and _start_c to always
> > be close together that would avoid this entirely?
>
> That would be my preference, too.
>
> Maybe one of these works:
>
> 1) Put both _start() and _start_c() in a dedicated .text subsection.
>
> Apparently the default GNU ld linkerscript contains '*(SORT(.text.sorted.*))'.
> So if we use .text.sorted.nolibc_start for both functions they should
> end up next to each other.
> See https://sourceware.org/binutils/docs/ld/Input-Section-Wildcards.html.
>
> 2) Put _start() *into* _start_c:
>
> diff --git a/tools/include/nolibc/crt.h b/tools/include/nolibc/crt.h
> index 714256228914..ebcd0ea2b9f2 100644
> --- a/tools/include/nolibc/crt.h
> +++ b/tools/include/nolibc/crt.h
> @@ -115,6 +115,19 @@ void _start_c(long *sp)
> (*--dtor_func)();
>
> exit(exitcode);
> +
> + __asm__ volatile (
> + ".global _start\n" /* The C function will have a prologue, */
> + ".type _start, @function\n" /* corrupting "sp" */
> + ".weak _start\n"
> + "_start:\n"
> +
> + "mov sp, r4\n" /* save argc pointer to r4, as arg1 of _start_c */
> + "bsr _start_c\n" /* transfer to c runtime */
> + "nop\n" /* delay slot */
> +
> + ".size _start, .-_start\n"
> + );
> }
>
> #endif /* NOLIBC_NO_RUNTIME */
>
> But that for all architectures, using macros etc.
>
> If the .text.sorted. solution works, I'd prefer that.
Do be honest, I think that Daniel's proposal remains the most maintainable
one. We rarely touch the start code, and having only a few do arch-
specific tricks is likely less of a burden for the long term than
relying on linker's ordering of sections, or starting to play macro
games. And it gets a chance that someone more familiar with that arch
improves it later if needed. But I'm not opiniated on this at all :-)
Thanks,
Willy