This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: RFA: Support for Thumb in dynamic objects
On Wed, 2004-11-17 at 17:05, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 04:59:10PM +0000, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> > On Wed, 2004-11-17 at 16:48, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 01:48:06PM +0000, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> > > > > OK? Comments?
> > > >
> > > > This is OK once you've addressed the point Paul raised. You might also
> > > > have to look at the tests when run in big-endian mode too.
> > >
> > > I missed some arm-elf vs arm-linux issues, and some big vs little
> > > endian issues; no one's run the testsuite in big-endian in a while.
> > > I'm reposting for review. There are two changes in the patch that I
> > > would like someone else to look at:
> > >
> > > - I fixed a big-endian Thumb disassembly bug. It would read past
> > > the end of the section.
> >
> > Can you use a macro rather than ~0x3?
>
> I just copied it from a couple of lines up. How about:
> ROUND_DOWN (pc + 4, 4)
> instead?
It would certainly be better than the direct manipulation, but I was
really thinking 'why are we doing the masking at this point?' Could it
be because we want an ARM instruction address? If it's a Thumb insn
address why isn't it ~1? A suitably named macro would convey that
information directly...
R.