This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH v2] x86-64: always use unsigned 32-bit relocation for 32-bit addressing
- From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich at suse dot com>
- To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "Binutils" <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 00:32:07 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86-64: always use unsigned 32-bit relocation for 32-bit addressing
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <5A0B287E020000780018ECCC@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> <CAMe9rOpqJqpCZGb_4Va=K_YPtzfxLdJDqrj=X8iJgNVD2+pDyg@mail.gmail.com> <5A0B2B6C020000780018ECE2@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> <CAMe9rOoZ2d-7Ju_Po9mF5aORGNJbpqP7tz=dEVsfMnXGyj5HyA@mail.gmail.com>
>>> On 14.11.17 at 17:52, <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 8:44 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 14.11.17 at 17:38, <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 8:31 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>> Except for %eip-relative addressing, where we don't have a suitable
>>>> relocation type silently wrapping at the 4G boundary, consistently
>>>> force use of R_X86_64_32 (in ELF terms) instead of its sign-extending
>>>> counterpart. This wasn't right in case there was no base register in
>>>> the addressing expression.
>>>
>>> Please open a bug report with your testcase to show incorrect result.
>>> I need to study it very carefully.
>>
>> I don't see why you need to study [edi*4+offs] when it simply
>> doesn't behave the same as [edi+offs].
>>
>
> If your patch survives bootstrap/test GCC in x32 and build/test glibc in x32,
> it is OK. Otherwise, please open a bug report.
PR 22441
Jan