From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <binutils-return-42973-listarch-binutils=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 10273 invoked by alias); 28 Sep 2005 15:48:21 -0000
Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:binutils-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/>
List-Post: <mailto:binutils@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:binutils-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 10247 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Sep 2005 15:48:15 -0000
Received: from smtp104.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com (HELO smtp104.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com) (68.142.198.203)
    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with SMTP; Wed, 28 Sep 2005 15:48:15 +0000
Received: (qmail 90337 invoked from network); 28 Sep 2005 15:48:14 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lucon.org) (hjjean@sbcglobal.net@67.122.69.173 with login)
  by smtp104.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Sep 2005 15:48:14 -0000
Received: by lucon.org (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 9CBA363F98; Wed, 28 Sep 2005 08:48:08 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:37:00 -0000
From: "H. J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org>
To: binutils@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: patch ping
Message-ID: <20050928154808.GA3605@lucon.org>
References: <433921B1.76F0.0078.0@novell.com> <20050927162338.GA12037@lucon.org> <20050928115350.GQ29044@bubble.grove.modra.org> <20050928144844.GA2693@lucon.org> <20050928152736.GA10075@nevyn.them.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20050928152736.GA10075@nevyn.them.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-SW-Source: 2005-09/txt/msg00331.txt.bz2

On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 11:27:36AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 07:48:44AM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 09:23:50PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> > > 
> > > I started looking at this one, and got as far as the following patch:
> > > 	* readelf.c (debug_apply_rela_addends): Relocate the whole
> > > 	section.
> > > 
> > > I'll leave this one for Nick to review, since I'm not sure of the
> > > ramifications of this FIXME.
> > > +  /* FIXME: The relocation field size is relocation type dependent.  */
> > > +  unsigned int reloc_size = 4;
> > 
> > It shouldn't matter unless the addend is >= 0xffffffff, which is quite
> > rare.
> 
> Or negative and sign extended?  e.g. mips64.
> 

MIPS is handled explicitly in debug_apply_rela_addends. But I have
no idea if it is done right or not. If we really want to make
debug_apply_rela_addends 100% correctly, it should get the relocation
size from the relocation type.


H.J.