----- Original Message -----
From: "Viktor Kutuzov" <vkutuzov@accesssoftek.com>
To: <binutils@sourceware.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: [PATCH Take 2] Gold: Added R_ARM_ABS8 relocation
Is this patch Ok?
Best regards,
Viktor
----- Original Message -----
From: "Viktor Kutuzov" <vkutuzov@accesssoftek.com>
To: <binutils@sourceware.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 12:52 PM
Subject: [PATCH Take 2] Gold: Added R_ARM_ABS8 relocation
Thanks, Ian, for the review.
Please find attached the updated patch.
By the way, I notice that there is a mix of spaces and tabs used in the source code for indents.
I have done my best trying to follow the original stile.
But it might be a formal policy I should follow?
Best regards,
Viktor
* gold/arm.cc: Added R_ARM_ABS8 relocation
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Lance Taylor" <iant@google.com>
To: "Viktor Kutuzov" <vkutuzov@accesssoftek.com>
Cc: <binutils@sourceware.org>
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 5:56 PM
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Gold: Added R_ARM_ABS8 relocation
Viktor Kutuzov <vkutuzov@accesssoftek.com> writes:
+ template<int min_no_bits, int max_no_bits>
+ static inline bool has_overflow(uint32_t bits) {
+ gold_assert(max_no_bits >= 0 && max_no_bits <= 32);
+ gold_assert(min_no_bits >= 0 && min_no_bits <= 32);
+ gold_assert(min_no_bits <= max_no_bits);
+ if (min_no_bits == 32)
+ return false;
+ int32_t max = (1 << (max_no_bits - 1)) - 1;
+ int32_t min = -(1 << (min_no_bits - 1));
+ int32_t as_signed = static_cast<int32_t> (bits);
+ return as_signed > max || as_signed < min;
+ }
Passing both MIN_NO_BITS and MAX_NO_BITS is not the way to go. What you
are really testing here is that the value must fit in either a signed or
unsigned value. You should write it like that. The function should not
be named has_overflow--that overloads an existing function. The
function needs a comment.
(Of course this relocation stuff should move to generic code anyhow, but
that is not your problem.)
+ case elfcpp::R_ARM_ABS8:
+ //FIXME: This should handles properly the dynamic linking against the shared object.
+ break;
This comment does not make sense as written. There should be a space
after the "//". It may be appropriate to warn if the symbol would
normally require a dynamic relocation. The same may be true in
scan::local.
+ case elfcpp::R_ARM_ABS8:
+ if (should_apply_static_reloc(gsym, Symbol::ABSOLUTE_REF, false,
+ output_section))
+ reloc_status = Arm_relocate_functions::abs8(view, object, psymval,
+ has_thumb_bit);
+ break;
Testing should_apply_static_reloc here only makes sense if we warn in
scan::local and scan::global. Otherwise we will in effect silently
ignore the relocation.
Thanks for sending the patch.
Ian