This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH 2.5/4 v2] GAS: Make new fake labels when cloning a symbol
- From: Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>
- To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>, Jie Zhang <jie at codesourcery dot com>, Catherine Moore <clm at codesourcery dot com>, binutils at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 10:58:35 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.5/4 v2] GAS: Make new fake labels when cloning a symbol
- References: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1007241721120.29495@tp.orcam.me.uk> <alpine.DEB.1.10.1010291442440.25860@tp.orcam.me.uk> <87aalwngmr.fsf@firetop.home> <alpine.DEB.1.10.1011011201550.27998@tp.orcam.me.uk> <87r5f4d92p.fsf@firetop.home> <alpine.DEB.1.10.1012012126420.14129@tp.orcam.me.uk> <1291309254.9299.9.camel@e102346-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <alpine.DEB.1.10.1012022256550.14129@tp.orcam.me.uk>
"Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@codesourcery.com> writes:
> Thanks for reducing the test case. Below I'm including a change that is
> supposed to fix it. The original change indeed is what triggered the
> problem, but from the code I have modified I infer it is more related to
> the issue with equated symbols not being handled correctly that I have
> fixed as well. This function counts as a symbol reference and as such
> should resolve any equated symbols by making a clone. Chances are code
> could have been crafted that would trigger a problem here even before my
> fixes, but I found no justification to spend time investigating that.
>
> The change below fixes the problem with your test case as well as one
> attached to PR gas/12282. I have regression-tested it with the
> arm-none-eabi and mips-sde-elf targets.
>
> 2010-12-02 Maciej W. Rozycki <macro@codesourcery.com>
>
> PR gas/12282
> * expr.c (make_expr_symbol): Make a clone if handling an
> equated symbol.
I'm not convinced this is correct when operand() calls make_expr_symbol()
in expr_defer mode. Could you provide a bit more justification?
Richard