Possible reloc patch (2/2)

[Doug Evans]

Richard Sandiford writes:
 > From the replies I've got, it seems to be generally accepted that having
 > relocs point to the start of instructions is better than having them point
 > to the start of operands.  I'm just confused as to why.  If a 32-bit
 > address can occur at more than one place in an instruction, what do you
 > gain by defining different relocs for each instruction format, rather than
 > one that applies to the operand itself?  My intuition behind a "reloc" was
 > that it described a bit sequence that needed adjusting; that whether the
 > bit sequence was part of an instruction or part of data wasn't really
 > relevant.

A very good question to ask on the binutils list ...