This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] PR ld/19572: -Ttext-segment accepts out of range value
- From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- To: Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 10:08:00 -0800
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR ld/19572: -Ttext-segment accepts out of range value
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20160205211658 dot GA30879 at intel dot com> <20160206135936 dot GH22967 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org> <CAMe9rOpdbO=29q0bx7ubWJu9URtqU2HN68oe1_5FGisUKevDWA at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 7:52 AM, H.J. Lu <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 5:59 AM, Alan Modra <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 01:16:58PM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> The address for -Tbss, -Tdata, -Ttext, -Ttext-segment, -Trodata-segment
>>> and -Tldata-segment shouldn't be bigger than the address space.
>> Does it really matter if someone specifies an address that wraps?
>> If it does, then it opens up other questions like: Is the 32-bit
>> address range 0 to 4G-1 or -2G to 2G-1? We have ELF targets (see
>> bed->sign_extend_vma) where the latter might be more natural.
> When address passed to -Txxxx overflows, bfd_scan_vma returns:
> if (overflow)
> value = ~ (bfd_vma) 0;
> My patch just checks this condition and issues an error. Is there any
> anything wrong with it?
Unless I am shown "~ (bfd_vma) 0" is a valid address for -Txxx before
this Friday, I will check it in on Friday.