Thanks, Ian, for the review.

Please find attached the updated patch.

By the way, I notice that there is a mix of spaces and tabs used in the source code for indents.
I have done my best trying to follow the original stile.
But it might be a formal policy I should follow?

Best regards,
Viktor

* gold/arm.cc: Added R_ARM_ABS8 relocation

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ian Lance Taylor" <iant@google.com>
To: "Viktor Kutuzov" <vkutuzov@accesssoftek.com>
Cc: <binutils@sourceware.org>
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 5:56 PM
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Gold: Added R_ARM_ABS8 relocation


Viktor Kutuzov <vkutuzov@accesssoftek.com> writes:

> +  template<int min_no_bits, int max_no_bits>
> +  static inline bool has_overflow(uint32_t bits) {
> +  gold_assert(max_no_bits >= 0 && max_no_bits <= 32);
> +  gold_assert(min_no_bits >= 0 && min_no_bits <= 32);
> +  gold_assert(min_no_bits <= max_no_bits);
> +  if (min_no_bits == 32)
> +  return false;
> +  int32_t max = (1 << (max_no_bits - 1)) - 1;
> +  int32_t min = -(1 << (min_no_bits - 1));
> +  int32_t as_signed = static_cast<int32_t> (bits);
> +  return as_signed > max || as_signed < min;
> +  }

Passing both MIN_NO_BITS and MAX_NO_BITS is not the way to go.  What you
are really testing here is that the value must fit in either a signed or
unsigned value.  You should write it like that.  The function should not
be named has_overflow--that overloads an existing function.  The
function needs a comment.

(Of course this relocation stuff should move to generic code anyhow, but
that is not your problem.)


> + case elfcpp::R_ARM_ABS8:
> +   //FIXME: This should handles properly the dynamic linking against the shared object.
> +   break;

This comment does not make sense as written.  There should be a space
after the "//".  It may be appropriate to warn if the symbol would
normally require a dynamic relocation.  The same may be true in
scan::local.

> + case elfcpp::R_ARM_ABS8:
> +   if (should_apply_static_reloc(gsym, Symbol::ABSOLUTE_REF, false,
> + output_section))
> +   reloc_status = Arm_relocate_functions::abs8(view, object, psymval,
> + has_thumb_bit);
> +   break;

Testing should_apply_static_reloc here only makes sense if we warn in
scan::local and scan::global.  Otherwise we will in effect silently
ignore the relocation.

Thanks for sending the patch.

Ian