Is glibc branch now frozen?

[Andrew Haley]

Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
 > On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 07:13:31PM +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
 > > Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
 > >  > On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 07:27:28PM +0200, Rene Rebe wrote:
 > >  > > On: Mon, 12 May 2003 23:59:59 +0930,
 > >  > >     Alan Modra <amodra@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
 > >  > > > On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 04:02:16PM +0200, Rene Rebe wrote:
 > >  > > > > unresolvable R_PPC_ADDR32 relocation against symbol `timezone@@GLIBC_2.0'
 > >  > > > 
 > >  > > > See http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2003-04/msg00488.html
 > >  > > 
 > >  > > In which binutils release should this change show up?
 > >  > 
 > >  > 2.14, due out shortly.  Once we finish testing the branch; probably
 > >  > another week or two.
 > > 
 > > Ah, I didn't realize that binutils release was so close.
 > > 
 > > I have a patch for the branch that really ought to go in.  rth has
 > > already seen it and okayed it for trunk and branch, but I haven't
 > > checked it in yet.  It's a patch to elf_hash(), which can in some
 > > circumstances return results different from the elf_hash() routine in
 > > glibc, and thus symbols aren't found in DSOs.
 > > 
 > > Is the branch frozen?
 > 
 > Not really.  I don't remember ever seeing your patch; could you post
 > it?  It sounds like it should be included.

The disparity can only occur (with fairly low probability) on a
machine that has a 64-bit long.  I was going to post it to binutils,
but I hadn't got around to it.

Andrew.


2003-05-07  Andrew Haley  <aph@redhat.com>

	* elf.c (bfd_elf_hash): Mask lower 32 bits of hash.

--- bfd/elf.c~  2003-05-06 18:15:30.000000000 +0100
+++ bfd/elf.c   2003-05-07 17:50:52.000000000 +0100
@@ -265,7 +265,7 @@
          h ^= g;
        }
     }
-  return h;
+  return h & 0xffffffff;
 }
 
 /* Read a specified number of bytes at a specified offset in an ELF