This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: binutils problem
- From: Richard Zidlicky <rz at linux-m68k dot org>
- To: "H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- Cc: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 13:55:59 +0200
- Subject: Re: binutils problem
- References: <20020824004405.B302@linux-m68k.org> <20020823220731.A12566@lucon.org>
On Fri, Aug 23, 2002 at 10:07:32PM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> I don't know much about m68k. Does anyone have any ideas?
I have produced a much smaller testcase:
======
.section .rodata.str1.1,"aMS",@progbits,1
.LC1:
.string "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
.LC88: .string "__builtin_memcpy"
.text
.align 2
.globl foobar
.type foobar,@function
foobar:
pea .LC88+10
.align 2
=======
objdump -x shows:
RELOCATION RECORDS FOR [.text]:
OFFSET TYPE VALUE
00000002 R_68K_32 .LC88+0x00000033
this is wrong, the 0x33 are from start of the section. Now
removing the
,"aMS",@progbits,1
from the first section directive produces
RELOCATION RECORDS FOR [.text]:
OFFSET TYPE VALUE
00000002 R_68K_32 .rodata.str1.1+0x00000033
which is the expected output. So what does the -,"aMS",@progbits,1- mean?
Where do I start debugging? Now that there is apparently only
one m68k specific instruction left could someone try it on
another arch?
Richard