Re: Why does slurp_ia64_unwind_table complain unwind symbol type?

["H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>]

On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 01:56:50AM -0700, David Mosberger wrote:
> Speaking of binutils bugs: I still have the following patch in my
> tree:
> 
> Index: bfd/elfxx-ia64.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/elfxx-ia64.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.141
> diff -u -r1.141 elfxx-ia64.c
> --- bfd/elfxx-ia64.c	10 Oct 2004 13:58:05 -0000	1.141
> +++ bfd/elfxx-ia64.c	22 Oct 2004 08:51:40 -0000
> @@ -4339,10 +4339,14 @@
>  	case R_IA64_SECREL64MSB:
>  	case R_IA64_SECREL64LSB:
>  	  /* Make output-section relative.  */
> +#if 0
>  	  if (value > input_section->output_section->vma)
>  	    value -= input_section->output_section->vma;
>  	  else
>  	    value = 0;
> +#else
> +	  value -= input_section->output_section->vma;
> +#endif
>  	  r = elfNN_ia64_install_value (hit_addr, value, r_type);
>  	  break;
>  
> 
> I'm 99% certain this is correct and I have never seen any problems
> with it (and it certainly fixes section-relative relocs which result
> in negative values), so I think it should go in.
> 
> However, last time we discussed this, Rich Henderson thought there
> might be an obscure issue that required the old code and suggested to
> rebuild a Linux distro with the patch applied and watch if anything
> breaks.  Unfortunately, I'm not well set up to do this myself
> (meaning: I have no clue how I'd go about rebuilding all of, say,
> Debian... ;-).
> 
> Can somebody help with testing this?

This is the original thread about the code in question:

http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2003-01/msg00399.html

It seems that the current binutils works fine with @secrel(). According
to Richard, those relocations are used for debug info. Testing this
change may not be easy. Do you have a testcase to show the problem
your change is tring to fix? If you do, please open a bug report at

http://www.sourceware.org/bugzilla/

I will try to fix it.

Thanks.


H.J.