This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: section-relative relocs on ia64 (was: Re: Why does slurp_ia64_unwind_table complain unwind symbol type?)
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 09:09:07AM -0700, David Mosberger wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 08:45:44 -0700, "H. J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org> said:
>
> >> Undefined weak might present a problem. They'll have sym_sec ==
> >> NULL.
>
> HJ> Does it look right?
>
> HJ> --- bfd/elfxx-ia64.c.weak 2004-10-26 16:05:02.000000000 -0700
> HJ> +++ bfd/elfxx-ia64.c 2004-10-27 08:40:24.092936792 -0700
> HJ> @@ -4376,7 +4376,8 @@ elfNN_ia64_relocate_section (output_bfd,
> HJ> case R_IA64_SECREL64LSB:
> HJ> /* Make output-section relative to section where the symbol
> HJ> is defined. PR 475 */
> HJ> - value -= sym_sec->output_section->vma;
> HJ> + if (sym_sec)
> HJ> + value -= sym_sec->output_section->vma;
> HJ> r = elfNN_ia64_install_value (hit_addr, value, r_type);
> HJ> break;
>
> If we want to be paranoid, perhaps this would be safer:
>
> if (sym_sec && value > sym_sec->output_section->vma)
> value -= sym_sec->output_section->vma;
> else
> value = 0;
I checked. If sym_sec is NULL, value will be 0. Otherwise value is
always >= sym_sec->output_section->vma. So mine gets the same result
as yours.
>
> That should guarantee that we have no regression vs. the old code
> (assuming sym_sec->output_section is never NULL).
>
> Note that with the (corrected) interpretation of @symsec(expr), it's
> impossible to have a real value that is negative, so "truncating" it
> to zero is not a problem.
H.J.