This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [patch] MIPS: Incorrect calculation for R_MIPS_LO16 relocs
- From: Richard Sandiford <rsandifo at redhat dot com>
- To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro at linux-mips dot org>
- Cc: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 14:44:42 +0100
- Subject: Re: [patch] MIPS: Incorrect calculation for R_MIPS_LO16 relocs
- References: <Pine.LNX.firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><Pine.LNX.firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><Pine.LNX.firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><Pine.LNX.firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><Pine.LNX.firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><Pine.LNX.firstname.lastname@example.org>
"Maciej W. Rozycki" <email@example.com> writes:
> I feel some of the bugs could have been and still can be avoided by doing
> actual fixes instead of trying to do workarounds for special cases. But
> that's just my opinion -- feel free to disagree.
Where we disagree is that this (the placement of LO16s) is a bug in the
first place. Like I say, you only get the "out of place" (in your opinion)
LO16s with REL relocations generated from explicit reloc expressions.
That's already extension territory.
We obviously aren't going to reach agreement on this, so there's
probably little point me saying any more.