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: [x32] Allow R_X86_64_64

On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:30 AM, Jan Beulich <> wrote:
>>>> On 12.08.11 at 06:37, "H.J. Lu" <> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 3:15 PM, H.J. Lu <> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> It turns out that x32 needs R_X86_64_64. ?One major reason is
>>> the displacement range of x32 is -2G to +2G. ?It isn't a problem
>>> for compiler since only small model is required for x32.
>>> However, to address 0 to 4G directly in assembly code, we have
>>> to use R_X86_64_64 with movabs. ?I am checking the follow patch
>>> into x32 psABI to allow R_X86_64_64.
>> X32 ?Linker should treats R_X86_64_64 as R_X86_64_32
>> zero-extended to 64bit for output. ?I will update x32 psABI with
> I'm sorry to say that, but the situation about x32 seems to be
> getting worse with each change you do, every time again
> revolving around mixing up ABI specification and a particular
> implementation thereof.
> Here, if you need something zero-extended (though I can't see
> why you would), then you should use a new relocation type. As
> pointed out before, there are valid possible uses of R_X86_64_64
> that would require the semantics of x86-64.

When does x32 need the semantics of x86-64 for R_X86_64_64?
No, you can't mix ELF32 with ELF64.


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