This is the mail archive of the binutils@sourceware.org mailing list for the binutils project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: farcall-section test

From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
To: Paul Brook <paul at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: binutils at sourceware dot org, Christophe LYON <christophe dot lyon at st dot com>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:21:28 -0500
Subject: Re: farcall-section test
References: <20090224031048.GB24046@caradoc.them.org> <49A3BFA0.5030703@st.com> <200902241218.31086.paul@codesourcery.com>

On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 12:18:30PM +0000, Paul Brook wrote:
> This test is bogus. The real bug is that the user (i.e. the source assembly) 
> is calling something that is not a function symbol. We should not be issuing 
> these relocations in the first place, certainly not for EABI targets.
> 
> If the user is requesting call relocations against non-functions symbols then 
> it really doesn't matter what we do. The code is already broken. There's 
> nothing special about long branch stubs in this case, *all* call relocations 
> are likely to break if the target is Thumb.

I'm confused.  Why does it matter for EABI targets?  We have mapping
symbols; the linker could easily do the right thing.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery

Follow-Ups:
- Re: farcall-section test
  - From: Paul Brook

References:
- farcall-section test
  - From: Daniel Jacobowitz
- Re: farcall-section test
  - From: Christophe LYON
- Re: farcall-section test
  - From: Paul Brook

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]