RFC: Should AArch64 *_NC relocs complain on overflow ?
Nick Clifton
nickc@redhat.com
Mon Feb 8 16:40:00 GMT 2016
Hi Jiong,
> + /* FIXME: Are we testing all of the appropriate reloc
> + types here ? */
> + && (real_r_type == BFD_RELOC_AARCH64_LDST16_LO12
> + || real_r_type == BFD_RELOC_AARCH64_LDST32_LO12
> + || real_r_type == BFD_RELOC_AARCH64_LDST64_LO12
> + || real_r_type == BFD_RELOC_AARCH64_LDST128_LO12))
>
>
> Some GOT relocation types will cause the same error.
Do you have a testcase that can demonstrate this ?
> Therefore, I think relocation against unaligned value can origin from
> various reasons.
True - that is why I used "Possibly" at the start of the warning message.
Ie the message is only a suggestion, not a guarantee.
IMHO, the safest way is, in
> "_bfd_aarch64_elf_put_addend", we return something like
> "bfd_reloc_unaligned" which is an general warning, something like
> "relocation against unaligned value warning."
More information about the Binutils
mailing list