This is the mail archive of the glibc-bugs@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc 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]

[Bug dynamic-link/14978] Incorrect R_X86_64_GLOB_DAT/R_X86_64_JUMP_SLOT handling


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14978

--- Comment #4 from Rich Felker <bugdal at aerifal dot cx> 2012-12-20 03:43:20 UTC ---
I compiled my proposed test program and found that it's not using
R_X86_64_GLOB_DAT for address constant reloctions, but rather R_X86_64_64. So
it's probably not necessary to support addends for R_X86_64_GLOB_DAT, but at
the same time, I also don't see how it's harmful. For the record, here is the
readelf output for the above code:

Relocation section '.rela.dyn' at offset 0x420 contains 8 entries:
  Offset          Info           Type           Sym. Value    Sym. Name +
Addend
000000200998  000000000008 R_X86_64_RELATIVE                   
0000000000200998
000000200938  000300000006 R_X86_64_GLOB_DAT 0000000000000000 __cxa_finalize +
0
000000200940  000500000006 R_X86_64_GLOB_DAT 0000000000000000
_ITM_registerTMCloneTa + 0
000000200948  000600000006 R_X86_64_GLOB_DAT 0000000000000000
__deregister_frame_inf + 0
000000200950  000700000006 R_X86_64_GLOB_DAT 0000000000000000
_ITM_deregisterTMClone + 0
000000200958  000d00000006 R_X86_64_GLOB_DAT 0000000000000000
__register_frame_info + 0
000000200960  000e00000006 R_X86_64_GLOB_DAT 0000000000000000
_Jv_RegisterClasses + 0
0000002009a0  000200000001 R_X86_64_64       0000000000200a10 x + 4

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.


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