This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the binutils project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

RE: SH relocation differences in older versions of the binutils


Does anyone have an idea on this?  We're also asking Hitachi for some help
but they haven't responded yet.

> Can someone help me figure out some code that I can use to have the GNU
> tools produce a binary with the following relocations?
> 
> R_SH_SWITCH8
> R_SH_GNU_VTINHERIT
> R_SH_GNU_VTENTRY
> R_SH_LOOP_START
> R_SH_LOOP_END
> 
> I need an object to use as a testcase for our efforts.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jeff Baker
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 3:26 PM
> > To: Jeff Baker
> > Cc: 'binutils@sources.redhat.com'
> > Subject: RE: SH relocation differences in older versions of the binutils
> >
> > Turns out that this isn't exactly the problem we're having.  We're still
> > using 2.12.1, which is well before these changes were made.  Also, as a
> > happy coincidence, none of the relocs that we emit seem to have moved so
> > hopefully we can gracefully begin to use a new version of the binutils
> in
> > the near future without this causing us headaches.
> >
> > The problem we're having boils down to what seems to be a fix for the
> way
> > that the SH ld handled addends in 2.10.1.  Specifically the changes
> > proposed in this posting: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2001-
> > 09/msg00302.html
> >
> > To help us work with both of these issues we're wondering a couple of
> > things.
> >
> > 1)  Is there currently, or should there be, some sort of indicator
> > included in object files that specifies which version of the binutils it
> > was produced with?
> >
> > 2)  Is there a reliable method of determining whether an SH object file
> is
> > using the addends correctly?  We want to be able to detect and warn, or
> > potentially correct older objects.
> >
> > > A few questions, if I may.
> > >
> > > Would I be correct in saying that the reason that the ABIVERSION was
> not
> > > incremented with this change is because it was ultimately considered a
> > > huge bug fix instead of a new ABI?
> > >
> > > Aside from parsing the relocs and attempting to determine which
> version
> > of
> > > the table they're using, can anyone recommend a way to determine
> whether
> > > an object uses the old relocs or new?  Right now we're looking for a
> way
> > > to dynamically translate the reloc table to the new relocs at link
> time.
> > >
> > > > AHA.  That's exactly what I was looking for, thanks.
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: DJ Delorie [mailto:dj@redhat.com]
> > > > > Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 2:30 PM
> > > > > To: jbaker@qnx.com
> > > > > Cc: binutils@sources.redhat.com
> > > > > Subject: Re: SH relocation differences in older versions of the
> > > binutils
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Does anyone know/remember what would have changed with the
> > handling
> > > of
> > > > > > relocations for SH between these two versions of the binutils?
> > > > >
> > > > > You'll want to read through this thread:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2003-08/msg00271.html


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]