Re: XCOFF 64 function address wrong?

[David Lecomber <david at allinea dot com>]

> Would you like to try the attached, untested patch ?  It is at best a 
> workaround since all it really does is to try to make sure that if a 
> symbol has a 64-bit value then it is displayed as such, but at least 
> this is better than displaying a truncated version.
> 

This fixes partially the problem -- the .main is properly addressed --
but the line numbering list remains truncated -- this being the 
1 : 0x43c bit:

[ 89](sec  1)(fl 0x00)(ty  20)(scl   2) (nx 2) 0x0000000100000428 .main
AUX tagndx 0 ttlsiz 0x68 lnnos 2806 next 100
AUX indx   87 prmhsh 0 snhsh 0 typ 2 algn 0 clss 0 stb 0 snstb 0
.main :
   1 : 0x43c
   2 : 0x44c


Thanks
d.