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