https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19567
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> --- (In reply to Cary Coutant from comment #1) > Sorry, if there's a bug here that you're trying to describe, I don't see it. > > Yes, I agree that the addend in Symbol_value::value() and > Merged_symbol_value::value() should be signed -- it really should be an > Elf_Swxword instead of Elf_Addr. But we're using two's complement arithmetic > and the generated code will be the same in either case, as Elf_Addr and > Elf_Swxword are both the same size. > > Using Elf_Swxword for the addend should also apply in Relocate_functions in > reloc.h. But again, I don't see how that would change anything. > I can't tell 0xffffffff returned from Symbol_value::value is -1 or 4294967295. Both are possible for x32 since hardware address is 64-bit. -- 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
