This is the mail archive of the binutils@sourceware.org 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] |
I wasn't able to build that assembler code for ARM with the TOT binutils. Errors about BFD_RELOC_8_PCREL representation in that object file format.
However, I think I see your point and it looks like it is simpler than my approach. I'll add the R_ARM_ABS16 relocation and will extend the unit tests for it. I would also like to have overflows checked as well. So, if you would not mind I'll add this cases to the script.
How does the R_ARM_GOT_PREL look? I didn't find a nice generic way to test it as target independent. Is it Ok to have it tested as platform dependent?
I don't understand your check_relocation_abs test.
Best regards, Viktor
Viktor Kutuzov <vkutuzov@accesssoftek.com> writes:
Please find attached the updated patch for the R_ARM_ABS8 relocation unit test.
I appreciate all the hard work you've done here, but this doesn't seem like the right approach to me.
For standard relocations like 8-bit absolute we can write a reasonably standard test. We don't need to write a target dependent test.
I think we can make these tests more robust by using special section names.
I don't understand your check_relocation_abs test. As far as I can tell, what it tests is that the final value of a symbol is the value in the object file plus the offset of the section in the executable. It doesn't seem to test the relocation value.
What I'm thinking is something along the lines of the appended, although that is incomplete.
Ian
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |