Ping: [PATCH] objcopy: fix 32-bit build

[Jan Beulich]

>>> On 10.01.18 at 10:32, <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> I do assume this isn't sufficient to address the non-64-bit-BFD case as
> well, but it's not entirely clear what the right approach to deal with
> that would be. I also wonder whether it was really meant to have 59 bits
> set here, rather than 63.

Anyone? Or did I overlook some better fix which may have gone in
in the meantime?

Jan

> binutils/
> 2018-01-10  Jan Beulich  <jbeulich@suse.com>
> 
> 	* objcopy.c (merge_gnu_build_notes): Replace 64-bit constants by
> 	equivalent expressions.
> 
> --- a/binutils/objcopy.c
> +++ b/binutils/objcopy.c
> @@ -2064,7 +2064,7 @@ merge_gnu_build_notes (bfd * abfd, asect
>  	     For now though, since v1 and v2 was not intended to
>  	     handle gaps, we chose an artificially large end
>  	     address.  */
> -	  end = (bfd_vma) 0x7ffffffffffffffUL;
> +	  end = ~((bfd_vma)1 << 63);
>  	  break;
>  	  
>  	case 8:
> @@ -2083,7 +2083,7 @@ merge_gnu_build_notes (bfd * abfd, asect
>  		 For now though, since v1 and v2 was not intended to
>  		 handle gaps, we chose an artificially large end
>  		 address.  */
> -	      end = (bfd_vma) 0x7ffffffffffffffUL;
> +	      end = ~((bfd_vma)1 << 63);
>  	    }
>  	  break;
>