Re: Fix for s390_elf_cons.

["Martin Schwidefsky" <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1128 bytes --]

>Somewhat :)  I'm claiming that the subtraction of the current location is
>implicit since you are using a pc-relative relocation.
>
>Consider an analogy with pcrel call insns on many architectures.  We
>write "call foo", which generates a pcrel reloc against foo with an
>implicit subtraction of ".".  We don't write "call foo - .".  On x86,
>which uses a pcrel plt reloc, we have "call foo@PLT" too, not
>"call foo@PLT - ."  This extends to ".long foo@PLT" if you want a
>pcrel plt reloc.

Yes in the case of a call instruction it makes sense. We make use of
the same notation for the brasl instruction in the 64 bit assembler.
It makes sense because the instructions gives you the hint that you
are dealing with an implicit "- .". In the case of .long you don't
have that hint. And a ".long printk@PLT + . - .LT0_0" is somewhat
harder to understand than ".long printk@PLT - .LT0_0". The pseudo
op .long is by itself absolute.

blue skies,
   Martin

Linux/390 Design & Development, IBM Deutschland Entwicklung GmbH
Schönaicherstr. 220, D-71032 Böblingen, Telefon: 49 - (0)7031 - 16-2247
E-Mail: schwidefsky@de.ibm.com