This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
x86-64 copy relocation
- To: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Subject: x86-64 copy relocation
- From: Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de>
- Date: 15 Jan 2001 14:35:29 +0100
What's the best way to specify the COPY relocation? I do think the
current x86-64 version is wrong - size and bitsize should be 0.
But I'm not completly sure. Some platforms, e.g. elf32-ppc.c and
elf32-i386, use non-zero values, others like elf32-sparc and
elf32-m68k use a zero value. What's the right value?
Andreas
2001-01-15 Andreas Jaeger <aj@suse.de>
* elf64-x86-64.c: COPY relocation has size and bitsize 0.
Index: elf64-x86-64.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/elf64-x86-64.c,v
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -r1.2 elf64-x86-64.c
--- elf64-x86-64.c 2000/12/07 19:31:48 1.2
+++ elf64-x86-64.c 2001/01/15 13:30:58
@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@
HOWTO(R_X86_64_PC32, 0,4,32,true ,0,complain_overflow_signed ,0, "R_X86_64_PC32", false,0xffffffff,0xffffffff,true),
HOWTO(R_X86_64_GOT32, 0,4,32,false,0,complain_overflow_signed ,0, "R_X86_64_GOT32", false,0xffffffff,0xffffffff,false),
HOWTO(R_X86_64_PLT32, 0,4,32,true ,0,complain_overflow_signed ,0, "R_X86_64_PLT32", false,0xffffffff,0xffffffff,true),
- HOWTO(R_X86_64_COPY, 0,4,32,false,0,complain_overflow_bitfield,0, "R_X86_64_COPY", false,0xffffffff,0xffffffff,false),
+ HOWTO(R_X86_64_COPY, 0,0, 0,false,0,complain_overflow_bitfield,0, "R_X86_64_COPY", false,0xffffffff,0xffffffff,false),
HOWTO(R_X86_64_GLOB_DAT, 0,4,64,false,0,complain_overflow_bitfield,0,"R_X86_64_GLOB_DAT",false,MINUS_ONE ,MINUS_ONE ,false),
HOWTO(R_X86_64_RELATIVE ,0,4,64,false,0,complain_overflow_bitfield,0,"R_X86_64_RELATIVE",false,MINUS_ONE ,MINUS_ONE ,false),
HOWTO(R_X86_64_JUMP_SLOT,0,4,64,false,0,complain_overflow_bitfield,0,"R_X86_64_JUMP_SLOT",false,MINUS_ONE,MINUS_ONE ,false),
--
Andreas Jaeger
SuSE Labs aj@suse.de
private aj@arthur.inka.de
http://www.suse.de/~aj