Re: [patch]: Fix base-file and relocation for w64

[Kai Tietz <Kai dot Tietz at onevision dot com>]

Hi Andreas,

Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de> wrote on 01.10.2008 17:20:20:

> Kai Tietz <Kai.Tietz@onevision.com> writes:
> 
> > @@ -1584,18 +1584,18 @@ dump_def_info (FILE *f)
> >  static int
> >  sfunc (const void *a, const void *b)
> >  {
> > -  return *(const long *) a - *(const long *) b;
> > +  return (int) (*(const bfd_vma *) a - *(const bfd_vma *) b);
> 
> This will overflow.

I can't see this problem here. But I agree that for addresses with deltas 
higher then 2^31 an overflow could happen here. But even the old 
expression for 32-bit has this disadvantages, too. If the addresses have a 
delta of 2^31 the sorting order seems to be wrong. E.g. For a=0x80000000 
and b=0, this function will say, that a is less than b, which in terms of 
memory orginization isn't true.

But I agree that a rewrite of this method as:

@@ -1584,18 +1584,18 @@ dump_def_info (FILE *f)
 static int
 sfunc (const void *a, const void *b)
 {
-  return *(const long *) a - *(const long *) b;
+  return ((*(const bfd_vma *) a == *(const bfd_vma *) b) ? 0 :
+    ((*(const bfd_vma *) a > *(const bfd_vma *) b) ? 1 : -1));

more correct and will sort things proper, too.

Cheers,
Kai

|  (\_/)  This is Bunny. Copy and paste Bunny
| (='.'=) into your signature to help him gain
| (")_(") world domination.