From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cagney To: Alan Modra Cc: BINUTILS Patches , GDB Patches Subject: Re: [rfc] For mips, sign-extended ecoff offsets Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 19:23:00 -0000 Message-id: <394ED588.3945491@cygnus.com> References: X-SW-Source: 2000-06/msg00389.html Alan Modra wrote: > > On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > > I'm worried about what happens if things like PDR.adr get changed from > > > 0xa0000000 to 0xffffffffa0000000. > > > > Thats why I'm asking :-) Remember though, on the MIPS platform, if > > ``PDR.adr'' is an address then, the canonical form of the value > > ``0xa0000000'' obtained from an elf32 binary is 0xffffffffa00000000. > > GDB and BFD have, for too many years, been bribed and cajoled into > > perpetuated the lie that MIPS doesn't sign extend addresses. GDB's now > > decided to come clean on this matter (and purge an amazing amount of > > bogus code :-). > > Well, it's the likelihood of other "bogus code" existing in binutils that > assumes addresses are _not_ sign extended that worries me. If you work to > the "You break it, you fix it" rule, then you may be taking on quite a bit > of work :-) I can help to an extent, however, to be honest, I'm having enough fun just re-stablizing the the GDB side of the MIPS. Consequently I'd be focusing on GDB specific problems. People on the BFD/MIPS side will need to be willing to help if there is fallout. > > Any way I've attached a revised patch. I wasn't ruthless enough the > > first time.... With this revision the linker appears to work :-) > > Testing is continuing. > > There's an ECOF_ typo still in a comment. Thanks. > > I guess the question for BFD people is, is this the correct approach to > > fixing this bug? > > I'd like to hear Ian's comments on this before you check it in. Ian has a long memory (Nick does to :-) and both would be very familar with the underlying problems and the very long history that is behind this :-) Andrew