This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the binutils project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Reloc question

To: Alan Modra <alan at linuxcare dot com dot au>
Subject: Re: Reloc question
From: Doug Evans <dje at transmeta dot com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 10:56:52 -0800 (PST)
Cc: Richard Sandiford <rsandifo at cygnus dot com>, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
References: <Pine.LNX.4.32.0101250902340.29373-100000@host149.cambridge.redhat.com><Pine.LNX.4.21.0101252327120.14496-100000@front.linuxcare.com.au>

Alan Modra writes:
 > On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, Richard Sandiford wrote:
 > 
 > > Is it better to have a reloc refer to the operand that needs fixing up, or
 > > to the instruction that contains it?
 > 
 > Why would you want a reloc referring anywhere other than the word(s) that
 > need relocating?  Seems counter-intuitive to me, especially on variable
 > instruction size cpus like x86.

cpus with complex addressing modes were _never_ at issue.

One data point is that if the reloc refers to the insn, you can do various
kinds of relaxation.  Can't do that with just BFD_RELOC_{8,16,32}.
Whether that's at issue for the cpu in question I dunno.

References:
- Reloc question
  - From: Richard Sandiford
- Re: Reloc question
  - From: Alan Modra

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]