This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Is glibc branch now frozen?
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 17:14:22 +0200
- Subject: Re: Is glibc branch now frozen?
- References: <20030512.160216.576022219.rene.rebe@gmx.net> <20030512142959.GO2166@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au> <20030512.192728.783375904.rene.rebe@gmx.net> <20030512175651.GA17873@nevyn.them.org> <16063.58443.923999.361502@masala.cambridge.redhat.com> <20030512181746.GA18691@nevyn.them.org> <16063.61390.312183.767021@masala.cambridge.redhat.com> <20030605150258.GA32686@nevyn.them.org>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 11:02:58AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> OK, I'll bite.
>
> Can you give an example where this patch makes any difference? It
> appears that h should never, ever exceed 0xffffffff anyway.
Say "\xf\xf\xf\xf\xf\xf\xf ".
If h before entering a loop round is >= 0xffffff1 and
(h << 4) + ch >= 0xffffffffL.
> > 2003-05-07 Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com>
> >
> > * elf.c (bfd_elf_hash): Mask lower 32 bits of hash.
> >
> > --- bfd/elf.c~ 2003-05-06 18:15:30.000000000 +0100
> > +++ bfd/elf.c 2003-05-07 17:50:52.000000000 +0100
> > @@ -265,7 +265,7 @@
> > h ^= g;
> > }
> > }
> > - return h;
> > + return h & 0xffffffff;
> > }
> >
> > /* Read a specified number of bytes at a specified offset in an ELF
> >
Jakub