On 05/03/2019 12:33, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
ping
From: Wilco Dijkstra
Sent: 13 February 2019 12:23
To: Ramana Radhakrishnan
Cc: GCC Patches; nd; Olivier Hainque
Subject: Re: [PATCH][ARM] Fix PR89222
Hi Ramana,
ARMv5te bootstrap OK, regression tests pass. OK for commit?
Interesting
ping
From: Wilco Dijkstra
Sent: 13 February 2019 12:23
To: Ramana Radhakrishnan
Cc: GCC Patches; nd; Olivier Hainque
Subject: Re: [PATCH][ARM] Fix PR89222
Hi Ramana,
>> ARMv5te bootstrap OK, regression tests pass. OK for commit?
>
> Interesting bug. armv5te-linux bootstr
Hi Ramana,
>> ARMv5te bootstrap OK, regression tests pass. OK for commit?
>
> Interesting bug. armv5te-linux bootstrap ? Can you share your --target
> and --with-arch flags ?
--target/host/build=arm-linux-gnueabi --with-arch=armv5te --with-mode=arm
>> + if (GET_CODE (base) == SYMBOL_REF)
>
> I
> On 11 Feb 2019, at 22:32, Ramana Radhakrishnan
> wrote:
> Can Olivier or someone who cares about vxworks also give this a quick
> sanity run for the alternate code path once we resolve some of the
> review questions here ? Don't we also need to worry about
> -mslow-flash-data where we get r
Hi Alexander,
> It seems odd to me that the spec requires '(S+A) | T' instead of the (imho
> more intuitive) '(S|T) + A', but apart from the missing diagnostic from the
> linkers, it seems they do as they must and GCC was at fault.
Doing (S+A) | T means bit zero always correctly encodes the Thumb
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 5:35 PM Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
>
> The GCC optimizer can generate symbols with non-zero offset from simple
> if-statements. Bit zero is used for the Arm/Thumb state bit, so relocations
> with offsets fail if it changes bit zero and the relocation forces bit zero
> to true.
On Mon, 11 Feb 2019, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> > With Gold linker this is handled correctly. So it looks to me like a
> > bug in BFD linker, where it ignores any addend (not just +1/-1) when
> > resolving a relocation against a Thumb function.
>
> If the Gold linker doesn't fail that means Gold has
Hi Alexander,
> Just to be sure the issue is analyzed properly: if it's certain that this
> usage
> is not allowed, shouldn't the linker produce a diagnostic instead of silently
> concealing the issue?
The ABI doesn't require this but yes a linker could report a warning if the
addend of a functi
On Mon, 11 Feb 2019, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> The GCC optimizer can generate symbols with non-zero offset from simple
> if-statements. Bit zero is used for the Arm/Thumb state bit, so relocations
> with offsets fail if it changes bit zero and the relocation forces bit zero
> to true. The fix is to
The GCC optimizer can generate symbols with non-zero offset from simple
if-statements. Bit zero is used for the Arm/Thumb state bit, so relocations
with offsets fail if it changes bit zero and the relocation forces bit zero
to true. The fix is to disable offsets on function pointer symbols.
ARM
10 matches
Mail list logo