https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19567
--- Comment #9 from Cary Coutant <ccoutant at gmail dot com> --- > My test here doesn't follow any programming model and is independent of > x32 or x86-64: > > [hjl@gnu-6 pr19567]$ cat x.s > .globl _start > _start: > mov $_start,%rax > mov _start,%rax > [hjl@gnu-6 pr19567]$ make > as -o x.o x.s > ld.gold -Ttext-segment 0x80000000 -o x x.o With today's patches to add overflow checking, this now gives relocation overflow errors for x86_64: $ ../../ld-new -Ttext-segment=0x80000000 x64.o x64.o(.text+0x3): error: relocation overflow x64.o(.text+0xb): error: relocation overflow I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about x32. > > $ ../../ld-new -m elf32_x86_64 -Ttext-segment=0x80000000 z.o > > $ objdump -d a.out > > > > a.out: file format elf32-x86-64 > > > > > > Disassembly of section .text: > > > > 80000074 <_start>: > > 80000074: 48 b8 74 00 00 80 00 movabs $0x80000074,%rax > > 8000007b: 00 00 00 > > 8000007e: 48 a1 74 00 00 80 00 movabs 0x80000074,%rax > > 80000085: 00 00 00 > > > > Here, 0x80000074 should have been sign-extended when we applied the > > relocations. > > No, it shouldn't. Are you going to change the psABI document? -- 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
