From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alan Modra To: Andrew Cagney Cc: BINUTILS Patches , GDB Patches Subject: Re: [rfc] For mips, sign-extended ecoff offsets Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 18:50:00 -0000 Message-id: References: <394EC637.24300B87@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2000-06/msg00385.html On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > I'm worried about what happens if things like PDR.adr get changed from > > 0xa0000000 to 0xffffffffa0000000. > > Thats why I'm asking :-) Remember though, on the MIPS platform, if > ``PDR.adr'' is an address then, the canonical form of the value > ``0xa0000000'' obtained from an elf32 binary is 0xffffffffa00000000. > GDB and BFD have, for too many years, been bribed and cajoled into > perpetuated the lie that MIPS doesn't sign extend addresses. GDB's now > decided to come clean on this matter (and purge an amazing amount of > bogus code :-). Well, it's the likelihood of other "bogus code" existing in binutils that assumes addresses are _not_ sign extended that worries me. If you work to the "You break it, you fix it" rule, then you may be taking on quite a bit of work :-) > Any way I've attached a revised patch. I wasn't ruthless enough the > first time.... With this revision the linker appears to work :-) > Testing is continuing. There's an ECOF_ typo still in a comment. > I guess the question for BFD people is, is this the correct approach to > fixing this bug? I'd like to hear Ian's comments on this before you check it in. Regards, Alan Modra -- Linuxcare. Support for the Revolution.