This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [patch] MIPS/gas: load/store address overflow on binutils 2.14
Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Sep 2003, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
>
> > The appended version does so. It gets also rid of the bogus
> > HAVE_64_BIT_ADDRESS_CONSTANTS define, which was effectively an alias for
> > HAVE_64_BIT_GPRS, and fixes the generation of constant 64-bit addresses
> > which are not 32-bit sign extended values. I guess the latter went
> > unnoticed for so long because kernels are usually built in the 32-bit
> > compatibility space and userland is PIC code.
>
> I do build kernels as n64, but I haven't noticed any difference. I don't
> think the difference would actually appear under any conditions
Your n64 kernels are still loaded in (C)KSEG0. A kernel in XKPHYS would die.
> -- can
> HAVE_64BIT_ADDRESSES be true when HAVE_64_BIT_GPRS is not?
Of course not, and I don't see how you came to this question. :-)
I just added an "IS_SEXT_32BIT_NUM (X_add_number + 0x8000)" in that place.
> > + /* Sign-extending 32-bit constants makes their handling easier. */
> > + if (! dbl)
> > + ep->X_add_number = (((ep->X_add_number & 0xffffffff) ^ 0x80000000)
> > + - 0x80000000);
> > +
>
> Do you really mean to sign-extend all constants, even if they have mixed
> bits in the high 32 ones? I'd prefer to trigger an error or at least a
> warning in such a case.
True, it should cause as_bad().
> As Eric wrote, a test case is desireable (to assure correct operation and
> to prevent possible future breakage) -- if you won't write one soon, I can
> do.
I'll add the as_bad() and add a testcase tomorrow.
Thiemo