This is the mail archive of the 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]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: m68k reloc types

Roman Zippel <> writes:

> One issue that really confused me at first is that some m68k pic reloc 
> types do something completely different than their i386 counterparts.

The m68k has different capabilites than the i386.

> Here an example:
> 0000003e <f>:
>   3e:   4e56 0000       linkw %fp,#0
>   42:   2f0d            movel %a5,%sp@-
>   44:   4bfb 0170 0000  lea %pc@(46 <f+0x8>),%a5
>   4a:   0000 
>                         48: R_68K_GOT32 _GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_+0x2
>   4c:   2075 0170 0000  moveal %a5@(00000000),%a0
>   52:   0000 
>                         50: R_68K_GOT32O        x
>   54:   2010            movel %a0@,%d0
>   56:   2a5f            moveal %sp@+,%a5
>   58:   4e5e            unlk %fp
>   5a:   4e75            rts
> i386 uses R_386_GOTPC and R_386_GOT32 here

Which are basically the same as R_68K_GOT32 and R_68K_GOT32O, resp.

> AFAICS it should be possible to fix this, existing binaries may not break 
> of course, but I think it should be possible to just rename this 
> within binutils.

Why do you need to rename them?  The names are defined by the ELF specs.

> Does anyone sees a problem with fixing this or does someone even know the 
> reason for these anomalies?

I see nothing broken here.


Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs,
SuSE Linux AG, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

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