Re: [PATCH] x86: Remove duplicated I386_PCREL_TYPE_P/X86_64_PCREL_TYPE_P

["H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 9:01 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>
> On 05.01.2023 17:55, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 8:52 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> >> On 05.01.2023 17:50, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 11:42 PM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 04.01.2023 20:14, H.J. Lu via Binutils wrote:
> >>>>> I386_PCREL_TYPE_P and X86_64_PCREL_TYPE_P are defined twice.  Remove
> >>>>> the duplications.
> >>>>
> >>>> I recall noticing this as well, quite some time back, but I didn't feel
> >>>> like touching it because I was puzzled by ...
> >>>>
> >>>>> --- a/bfd/elfxx-x86.h
> >>>>> +++ b/bfd/elfxx-x86.h
> >>>>> @@ -97,13 +97,6 @@
> >>>>>  #define PLT_FDE_START_OFFSET 4 + PLT_CIE_LENGTH + 8
> >>>>>  #define PLT_FDE_LEN_OFFSET   4 + PLT_CIE_LENGTH + 12
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -#define I386_PCREL_TYPE_P(TYPE) ((TYPE) == R_386_PC32)
> >>>>
> >>>> ... this not including PC8 and PC16 when ...
> >>>
> >>> This is I386_PCREL_TYPE_P.
> >>>
> >>>>> -#define X86_64_PCREL_TYPE_P(TYPE) \
> >>>>> -  ((TYPE) == R_X86_64_PC8 \
> >>>>> -   || (TYPE) == R_X86_64_PC16 \
> >>>>> -   || (TYPE) == R_X86_64_PC32 \
> >>>>> -   || (TYPE) == R_X86_64_PC64)
> >>>>
> >>>> ... this does.
> >>>
> >>> This is X86_64_PCREL_TYPE_P, not I386_PCREL_TYPE_P.
> >>>
> >>>> Jan
> >>>
> >>> The current ones have
> >>>
> >>> #define X86_64_PCREL_TYPE_P(TYPE) \
> >>>   ((TYPE) == R_X86_64_PC8 \
> >>>    || (TYPE) == R_X86_64_PC16 \
> >>>    || (TYPE) == R_X86_64_PC32 \
> >>>    || (TYPE) == R_X86_64_PC64)
> >>> #define I386_PCREL_TYPE_P(TYPE) ((TYPE) == R_386_PC32)
> >>>
> >>> and the ones I removed are
> >>>
> >>> -#define I386_PCREL_TYPE_P(TYPE) ((TYPE) == R_386_PC32)
> >>> -#define X86_64_PCREL_TYPE_P(TYPE) \
> >>> -  ((TYPE) == R_X86_64_PC8 \
> >>> -   || (TYPE) == R_X86_64_PC16 \
> >>> -   || (TYPE) == R_X86_64_PC32 \
> >>> -   || (TYPE) == R_X86_64_PC64)
> >>>
> >>> They are identical.
> >>
> >> That wasn't the question, though. I really did ask about the 32-bit vs
> >> 64-bit difference, which looks suspect to me.
> >>
> >
> > R_386_PC8 and R_386_PC16 were never handled by linker.
>
> May I then ask why that is (or, worded differently, why the two respective
> types are handled for x86-64)? Is this just one of the many inconsistencies
> that we have?
>

I guess so.

-- 
H.J.