From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <binutils-return-87736-listarch-binutils=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 16735 invoked by alias); 12 May 2015 15:17:12 -0000
Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <binutils.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:binutils-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/>
List-Post: <mailto:binutils@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:binutils-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 16724 invoked by uid 89); 12 May 2015 15:17:11 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-HELO: mail.emea.novell.com
Received: from mail.emea.novell.com (HELO mail.emea.novell.com) (130.57.118.101) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 12 May 2015 15:17:10 +0000
Received: from EMEA1-MTA by mail.emea.novell.com	with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 12 May 2015 16:17:08 +0100
Message-Id: <555235930200007800079911@mail.emea.novell.com>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 15:17:00 -0000
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com>
To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
Cc: "Binutils" <binutils@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [committed, PATCH] Remove Disp16|Disp32 from 64-bit direct branches
References: <20150511212331.GA1838@intel.com> <5551F4E70200007800079575@mail.emea.novell.com> <CAMe9rOpDbkeFbmNbQh0a1AKhAQy-cH4HJu20o_ERQaoR6sTxbQ@mail.gmail.com> <55520C440200007800079718@mail.emea.novell.com> <CAMe9rOpFgSyJm-oceuDkrBYnBQGv01ywCc43WySqX21NTJYi4Q@mail.gmail.com> <555216370200007800079773@mail.emea.novell.com> <CAMe9rOpOx=SSUZnCFimn4fBzFqNRDch8QYLn3Os_y7EfQH65Qw@mail.gmail.com> <5552318402000078000798A8@mail.emea.novell.com> <CAMe9rOoqcr7aE8dr6E44KUK6JLrNMNcDNFFWhcb6K+14M=Y+=w@mail.gmail.com> <555233B602000078000798EF@mail.emea.novell.com> <CAMe9rOrOS+K0R+r1jHCNwAkgrhjftHUOGt_wTuP8wRYcPdifmQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMe9rOrOS+K0R+r1jHCNwAkgrhjftHUOGt_wTuP8wRYcPdifmQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SW-Source: 2015-05/txt/msg00094.txt.bz2

>>> On 12.05.15 at 17:11, <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 8:09 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 12.05.15 at 17:03, <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 7:59 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>> Yes. But then what was the point of you ripping out Disp16?
>>>
>>> I removed it since it doesn't jump to the target.  Can you verify
>>> that it does jump to "(nextip + disp16) & 0xffff, not jump to
>>> "(nextip + disp16)"?
>>
>> Yes - see the gdb output I provided yesterday.
>>
>=20
> Does it mean it is wrong to display
>=20
>  0:   66 e9 00 00             jmpw   4 <bar>
>                         2: R_X86_64_PC16        foo-0x2
>=20
> 0000000000000004 <bar>:
>    4:   89 c2                   mov    %eax,%edx

I don't think so - this looks quite okay. It would become more of an
issue when looking at other than relocatable object files (namely
when their image base is non-zero), or ones with .text exceeding
32k.

Jan