From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28923 invoked by alias); 10 Jan 2013 09:48:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 28911 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Jan 2013 09:48:39 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-pa0-f48.google.com (HELO mail-pa0-f48.google.com) (209.85.220.48) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 Jan 2013 09:48:35 +0000 Received: by mail-pa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id fa1so260705pad.21 for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2013 01:48:34 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.234.36 with SMTP id ub4mr218346193pbc.68.1357811314722; Thu, 10 Jan 2013 01:48:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.68.25.202 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Jan 2013 01:48:34 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <87a9sj32qj.fsf@talisman.default> Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 09:48:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: invocation of mips_elf_multi_got can cause not enough GOT space for local GOT entries From: Robert Schiele To: Robert Schiele , binutils@sourceware.org, rdsandiford@googlemail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2013-01/txt/msg00137.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Robert Schiele wrote: > The offending relocations are R_MIPS_GOT_PAGE relocations against > .rodata.str1.8 sections. And giving that one further thought, this section is SHF_MERGE | SHF_STRINGS and thus it is kind of expected that from the merging it could happen that the offsets of those relocations can change for a different amount since other stuff could have been merged in between. If that happens it is actually quite likely that they can cover more pages than they initially did and thus the assumption mentioned above that you can get an upper bound of pages affected by just summing up the affected pages of the individual objects before is no longer true. Do you agree or do I have a wrong understanding here of how things work? Robert