[rfc] For mips, sign-extended ecoff offsets

Alan Modra alan@linuxcare.com.au
Mon Jun 19 18:50:00 GMT 2000

On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Andrew Cagney wrote:

> > I'm worried about what happens if things like PDR.adr get changed from
> > 0xa0000000 to 0xffffffffa0000000.
> Thats why I'm asking :-) Remember though, on the MIPS platform, if
> ``PDR.adr'' is an address then, the canonical form of the value
> ``0xa0000000'' obtained from an elf32 binary is 0xffffffffa00000000. 
> GDB and BFD have, for too many years, been bribed and cajoled into
> perpetuated the lie that MIPS doesn't sign extend addresses.   GDB's now
> decided to come clean on this matter (and purge an amazing amount of
> bogus code :-).

Well, it's the likelihood of other "bogus code" existing in binutils that
assumes addresses are _not_ sign extended that worries me.  If you work to
the "You break it, you fix it" rule, then you may be taking on quite a bit
of work :-)

> Any way I've attached a revised patch.  I wasn't ruthless enough the
> first time....  With this revision the linker appears to work :-) 
> Testing is continuing.

There's an ECOF_ typo still in a comment.

> I guess the question for BFD people is, is this the correct approach to
> fixing this bug?

I'd like to hear Ian's comments on this before you check it in.

Regards, Alan Modra
Linuxcare.  Support for the Revolution.

More information about the Binutils mailing list