From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23141 invoked by alias); 11 Sep 2009 18:39:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 23133 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Sep 2009 18:39:26 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,J_CHICKENPOX_83,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (216.239.45.13) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:39:22 +0000 Received: from spaceape8.eur.corp.google.com (spaceape8.eur.corp.google.com [172.28.16.142]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id n8BIdKi4007924 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:39:20 -0700 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com (fgg16.prod.google.com [10.86.7.16]) by spaceape8.eur.corp.google.com with ESMTP id n8BIdH0w023405 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:39:17 -0700 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 16so23906fgg.14 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:39:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.86.169.25 with SMTP id r25mr2582807fge.17.1252694357338; Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:39:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain.google.com (dhcp-172-22-126-192.mtv.corp.google.com [172.22.126.192]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l12sm174352fgb.23.2009.09.11.11.39.14 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:39:16 -0700 (PDT) To: Viktor Kutuzov Cc: Subject: Re: [PATCH Take 2] Gold: Added R_ARM_ABS8 relocation References: From: Ian Lance Taylor Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:39:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Viktor Kutuzov's message of "Fri\, 11 Sep 2009 10\:49\:58 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-System-Of-Record: true 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: 2009-09/txt/msg00336.txt.bz2 Viktor Kutuzov writes: > Ping. Can somebody commit this patch? Sorry--I've been busy and have not had time to review this set of patches. I will get to them soon. Sorry for the delay. Ian > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Viktor Kutuzov" > To: > Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 11:02 AM > Subject: Re: [PATCH Take 2] Gold: Added R_ARM_ABS8 relocation > > > Is this patch Ok? > > Best regards, > Viktor > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Viktor Kutuzov" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 12:52 PM > Subject: [PATCH Take 2] Gold: Added R_ARM_ABS8 relocation > > > Thanks, Ian, for the review. > > Please find attached the updated patch. > > By the way, I notice that there is a mix of spaces and tabs used in the source code for indents. > I have done my best trying to follow the original stile. > But it might be a formal policy I should follow? > > Best regards, > Viktor > > * gold/arm.cc: Added R_ARM_ABS8 relocation > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ian Lance Taylor" > To: "Viktor Kutuzov" > Cc: > Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 5:56 PM > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Gold: Added R_ARM_ABS8 relocation > > > Viktor Kutuzov writes: > >> + template >> + static inline bool has_overflow(uint32_t bits) { >> + gold_assert(max_no_bits >= 0 && max_no_bits <= 32); >> + gold_assert(min_no_bits >= 0 && min_no_bits <= 32); >> + gold_assert(min_no_bits <= max_no_bits); >> + if (min_no_bits == 32) >> + return false; >> + int32_t max = (1 << (max_no_bits - 1)) - 1; >> + int32_t min = -(1 << (min_no_bits - 1)); >> + int32_t as_signed = static_cast (bits); >> + return as_signed > max || as_signed < min; >> + } > > Passing both MIN_NO_BITS and MAX_NO_BITS is not the way to go. What you > are really testing here is that the value must fit in either a signed or > unsigned value. You should write it like that. The function should not > be named has_overflow--that overloads an existing function. The > function needs a comment. > > (Of course this relocation stuff should move to generic code anyhow, but > that is not your problem.) > > >> + case elfcpp::R_ARM_ABS8: >> + //FIXME: This should handles properly the dynamic linking against the shared object. >> + break; > > This comment does not make sense as written. There should be a space > after the "//". It may be appropriate to warn if the symbol would > normally require a dynamic relocation. The same may be true in > scan::local. > >> + case elfcpp::R_ARM_ABS8: >> + if (should_apply_static_reloc(gsym, Symbol::ABSOLUTE_REF, false, >> + output_section)) >> + reloc_status = Arm_relocate_functions::abs8(view, object, psymval, >> + has_thumb_bit); >> + break; > > Testing should_apply_static_reloc here only makes sense if we warn in > scan::local and scan::global. Otherwise we will in effect silently > ignore the relocation. > > Thanks for sending the patch. > > Ian