This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Why does slurp_ia64_unwind_table complain unwind symbol type?
- From: David Mosberger <davidm at napali dot hpl dot hp dot com>
- To: "H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- Cc: davidm at hpl dot hp dot com, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 01:56:50 -0700
- Subject: Re: Why does slurp_ia64_unwind_table complain unwind symbol type?
- References: <20041021161704.GA24203@lucon.org>
- Reply-to: davidm at hpl dot hp dot com
Speaking of binutils bugs: I still have the following patch in my
tree:
Index: bfd/elfxx-ia64.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/elfxx-ia64.c,v
retrieving revision 1.141
diff -u -r1.141 elfxx-ia64.c
--- bfd/elfxx-ia64.c 10 Oct 2004 13:58:05 -0000 1.141
+++ bfd/elfxx-ia64.c 22 Oct 2004 08:51:40 -0000
@@ -4339,10 +4339,14 @@
case R_IA64_SECREL64MSB:
case R_IA64_SECREL64LSB:
/* Make output-section relative. */
+#if 0
if (value > input_section->output_section->vma)
value -= input_section->output_section->vma;
else
value = 0;
+#else
+ value -= input_section->output_section->vma;
+#endif
r = elfNN_ia64_install_value (hit_addr, value, r_type);
break;
I'm 99% certain this is correct and I have never seen any problems
with it (and it certainly fixes section-relative relocs which result
in negative values), so I think it should go in.
However, last time we discussed this, Rich Henderson thought there
might be an obscure issue that required the old code and suggested to
rebuild a Linux distro with the patch applied and watch if anything
breaks. Unfortunately, I'm not well set up to do this myself
(meaning: I have no clue how I'd go about rebuilding all of, say,
Debian... ;-).
Can somebody help with testing this?
--david