[PATCH] Fix sleb128 encoding for difference expressions
Jan Beulich
JBeulich@suse.com
Thu Nov 8 14:02:00 GMT 2012
>>> On 08.11.12 at 14:05, Julian Brown <julian@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We encountered a situation where .sleb128 directives would behave in an
> unexpected way. For a source file such as:
>
> .text
> .globl foo
> foo:
> .L1:
> .byte 0
> .byte 0
> .byte 0
> .L2:
>
> .data
> bar:
> .sleb128 .L1 - .L2
> .byte 42
>
> assembled and objdump'd, we get:
>
> Contents of section .data:
> 0000 fdffffff ffffffff ff012a00 00000000 ..........*.....
>
> the value of "-3" has been interpreted as a (64-bit) unsigned quantity
> 0xfffffffffffffffd, and henceforth encoded as a sleb128 value, whereas
> what we wanted was simply the encoding "7d", i.e. -3.
>
> The clause in read.c:emit_leb128_expr is a clue as to why this is
> happening:
>
> else if (op == O_constant
> && sign
> && (exp->X_add_number < 0) != !exp->X_unsigned)
> {
> /* We're outputting a signed leb128 and the sign of X_add_number
> doesn't reflect the sign of the original value. Convert EXP
> to a correctly-extended bignum instead. */
> convert_to_bignum (exp);
> op = O_big;
> }
>
> so in this case we have exp->X_add_number less than zero, but
> exp->X_unsigned is true: the operands (.L1, .L2) are unsigned, so the
> result of the expression .L1 - .L2 is also unsigned. Hence,
> convert_to_bignum converts "exp" to a bignum as an unsigned expression.
>
> My proposed fix is a change to the ad-hoc type system for expressions.
> The basic idea is simply to see if the result of a subtraction
> operation will fall below zero, and if so force the "unsigned" flag for
> the result value to be false (normally all of an expression's operands,
> and its result, are unsigned). No other operators are altered.
I don't think this will go without surprises here and there: Consider
that expressions like
a - b + c
and
a + c - b
could now evaluate differently (for appropriately chosen values).
I could see your change being correct for the <symbol> -
<symbol> case, but certainly not for <constant> - <constant>
(<symbol> - <constant> being questionable).
> This still works for expressions such as,
>
> .sleb128 .L2 - .L1 + (1 << 31)
> (or .sleb128 .L2 - .L1 + (1 << 63))
>
> where L2 is greater than L1, i.e. where the sign bit "looks like" it is
> set, since the result of these will still be regarded as unsigned.
> There may be other corner cases which behave unexpectedly, however.
>
> OK to apply, or any comments? Maybe suggestions for other ways of
> tackling the problem? (Tested with cross to mips-linux.)
I think that the .sleb128 handler itself might instead need to be
changed to make the result explicitly signed (as that's what
directive says) at least in some specific cases.
Jan
More information about the Binutils
mailing list