https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21700
--- Comment #5 from James Reynolds <james.reynolds at cristie dot com> --- Created attachment 10252 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10252&action=edit Better patch and example I think this patch fixes the issue and another issue - but unfortunately I think this now gets blocked by a linker issue, which I can raise separately. I've added the relocations to use R_NEG after R_POS[_64] and this seems to match what the IBM linker is doing. I've also adjusted ppc_fix_adjustable so that this code: .vbyte 4,LFB..0-$ generates an R_POS / R_NEG as well as this is what the IBM assembler does. For a small test problem (in archive) this generates the same relocations as IBM modulo positions in the TOC (I think). Unfortunately... switching to use R_RBR_26 instead of R_BR causes an illegal instruction. Just using R_BR generates a working program but the exception isn't correctly caught. (This is using the IBM linker) Should I now get this patch landed, close this bug and create another once I've found the root cause of the illegal instruction / R_BR issues? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
