It appears that if you have a 64-bit host targetting a 32-bit platform,
the complain_overflow_bitfield case in _bfd_relocate_contents() will
incorrectly generate an overflow error for negative constants. The
"~fieldmask" gives you a whole lot of high one bits (for a 16-bit
bitfield you get 0xffffffffffff0000). But, taking the value "a" to be
some typical negative constant like -1 == 0xffffffff, ss becomes
0xffff0000, and doesn't equal ((bfd_vma) -1 >> rightshift) & signmask))
even though the expectation in this case is that it should. So I just
cut signmask down with addrmask so it's 0xffff0000 instead (where
addrmask is the mask for the target bitsize).
This bug is present in binutils-2.16.1.
Chris Metcalf
--- binutils-2.16.1/bfd/reloc.c.orig 2005-11-30 14:49:23.000000000 -0500
+++ binutils-2.16.1/bfd/reloc.c 2005-11-30 14:52:32.000000000 -0500
@@ -1504,21 +1504,21 @@
case complain_overflow_bitfield:
/* Much like the signed check, but for a field one bit
wider, and no trimming inputs with addrmask. We allow a
bitfield to represent numbers in the range -2**n to
2**n-1, where n is the number of bits in the field.
Note that when bfd_vma is 32 bits, a 32-bit reloc can't
overflow, which is exactly what we want. */
a >>= rightshift;
- signmask = ~ fieldmask;
+ signmask = (~ fieldmask) & addrmask;
ss = a & signmask;
if (ss != 0 && ss != (((bfd_vma) -1 >> rightshift) & signmask))
flag = bfd_reloc_overflow;
signmask = ((~ howto->src_mask) >> 1) & howto->src_mask;
b = (b ^ signmask) - signmask;
b >>= bitpos;
sum = a + b;
_______________________________________________
bug-binutils mailing list
bug-binutils@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
