https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17505
--- Comment #8 from Christian Bruel <chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
sorry, the first test was only illustrative, but not completed. the fact that
the addresses are the same is just because I reduced the code.
Here is the complete attachment, here the code is :
00008240 <foo>:
8240: e30b3178 movw r3, #45432 ; 0xb178
8244: e3e0207e mvn r2, #126 ; 0x7e
8248: e3403001 movt r3, #1
824c: e5933000 ldr r3, [r3]
8250: e5c32000 strb r2, [r3]
8254: e12fff1e bx lr
00008258 <bar>:
8258: 4770 bx lr
825a: bf00 nop
and main calls :
00008018 <main>:
8018: e92d4010 push {r4, lr}
801c: fa000093 blx 8270 <atexit+0x14>
8020: eb000086 bl 8240 <foo>
8024: e3a00000 mov r0, #0
8028: e8bd8010 pop {r4, pc}
so
bl bar
is in the .o
4: eb000004 bl 30 <bar+0x18>
4: R_ARM_CALL bar
instead of just bl 30 <0x18>
looks like a wrong addend to the start of the section.
to reproduce:
arm-none-eabi-gcc -march=armv7-a 2.s -c -o 1.o
arm-none-eabi-objdump -dr 1.o | grep bar
arm-none-eabi-gcc -march=armv7-a 2.s -o 1.u
arm-none-eabi-objdump -dr 1.u
--
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
