* [PATCH] x86: Remove duplicated I386_PCREL_TYPE_P/X86_64_PCREL_TYPE_P
@ 2023-01-04 19:14 H.J. Lu
2023-01-05 7:42 ` Jan Beulich
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: H.J. Lu @ 2023-01-04 19:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: binutils
I386_PCREL_TYPE_P and X86_64_PCREL_TYPE_P are defined twice. Remove
the duplications.
* elfxx-x86.h (I386_PCREL_TYPE_P): Remove duplication.
(X86_64_PCREL_TYPE_P): Likewise.
---
bfd/elfxx-x86.h | 7 -------
1 file changed, 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/bfd/elfxx-x86.h b/bfd/elfxx-x86.h
index e3f83b600ef..3b4644ca478 100644
--- 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)
-#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 must be the same as sframe_get_hdr_size (sfh). For x86-64, this value
is the same as sizeof (sframe_header) because there is no SFrame auxilliary
header. */
--
2.39.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] x86: Remove duplicated I386_PCREL_TYPE_P/X86_64_PCREL_TYPE_P
2023-01-04 19:14 [PATCH] x86: Remove duplicated I386_PCREL_TYPE_P/X86_64_PCREL_TYPE_P H.J. Lu
@ 2023-01-05 7:42 ` Jan Beulich
2023-01-05 16:50 ` H.J. Lu
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Jan Beulich @ 2023-01-05 7:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: H.J. Lu; +Cc: binutils
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 ...
> -#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.
Jan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] x86: Remove duplicated I386_PCREL_TYPE_P/X86_64_PCREL_TYPE_P
2023-01-05 7:42 ` Jan Beulich
@ 2023-01-05 16:50 ` H.J. Lu
2023-01-05 16:52 ` Jan Beulich
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: H.J. Lu @ 2023-01-05 16:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Beulich; +Cc: binutils
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.
--
H.J.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] x86: Remove duplicated I386_PCREL_TYPE_P/X86_64_PCREL_TYPE_P
2023-01-05 16:50 ` H.J. Lu
@ 2023-01-05 16:52 ` Jan Beulich
2023-01-05 16:55 ` H.J. Lu
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Jan Beulich @ 2023-01-05 16:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: H.J. Lu; +Cc: binutils
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.
Jan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] x86: Remove duplicated I386_PCREL_TYPE_P/X86_64_PCREL_TYPE_P
2023-01-05 16:52 ` Jan Beulich
@ 2023-01-05 16:55 ` H.J. Lu
2023-01-05 17:01 ` Jan Beulich
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: H.J. Lu @ 2023-01-05 16:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Beulich; +Cc: binutils
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.
--
H.J.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] x86: Remove duplicated I386_PCREL_TYPE_P/X86_64_PCREL_TYPE_P
2023-01-05 16:55 ` H.J. Lu
@ 2023-01-05 17:01 ` Jan Beulich
2023-01-05 17:03 ` H.J. Lu
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Jan Beulich @ 2023-01-05 17:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: H.J. Lu; +Cc: binutils
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?
Jan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] x86: Remove duplicated I386_PCREL_TYPE_P/X86_64_PCREL_TYPE_P
2023-01-05 17:01 ` Jan Beulich
@ 2023-01-05 17:03 ` H.J. Lu
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: H.J. Lu @ 2023-01-05 17:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Beulich; +Cc: binutils
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-01-05 17:03 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-01-04 19:14 [PATCH] x86: Remove duplicated I386_PCREL_TYPE_P/X86_64_PCREL_TYPE_P H.J. Lu
2023-01-05 7:42 ` Jan Beulich
2023-01-05 16:50 ` H.J. Lu
2023-01-05 16:52 ` Jan Beulich
2023-01-05 16:55 ` H.J. Lu
2023-01-05 17:01 ` Jan Beulich
2023-01-05 17:03 ` H.J. Lu
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).