This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: bug(?) in ppc relocations
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 23:02:18 +0200
> From: Momchil Velikov <velco@fadata.bg>
>
> addend -= (sdata->sym_hash->root.u.def.value
> + sdata->sym_hash->root.u.def.section->output_section->vma
> + sdata->sym_hash->root.u.def.section->output_offset);
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> } |
> break; |
> This looks somewhat suspicious.
> sdata->sym_hash is the _SDA_BASE_ symbol and its value,
> as far as I can understand, should not be affected by output_offset,
> right ?
>
> You are incorrect. It should be affected by output_offset. Any time
> you look at section->output_section->vma, you need to look at
> output_offset.
Yep, for ordinary symbols, but _SDA_BASE_ is not quite normal, is it ?
>
> Consider the following scenario:
> 1. The linker creates a linker section .sdata and _SDA_BASE_ with
> offset 32768
> 2. The linker outputs to the output .sdata some input .sdata
> 3. The linker appends the linker .sdata to output .sdata
> Now data items in the first .sdata are at offset < -32768 relative to
> _SDA_BASE_ and the linker exits with relocation overflow error.
>
> If the above analisys is correct one can think of (at least) two
> options:
> (a) make sure the linker section is output first, or
> (b) remove the underlined line above.
>
> I don't understand your analysis.
>
> Are you assuming that output_offset changes during the final linking
> phase? It doesn't.
Nope, I don't assume that. I see the output offset of the linker .sdata
secton being greater than zero, so the value of _SDA_BASE_ in the
output file is == (the address of .sdata + something greater than
32768), thus
the data items near the beginning of .sdata cannot be addressed with
signed 16-bit offset from _SDA_BASE_.
Regards,
-velco