https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21407
--- Comment #4 from Jeremy Cooper <jeremygccb at baymoo dot org> --- Ok, I concur. It left me queasy, too, that the branch offset would have been severely reduced as a result of the previous code, but I had no insight as to whether the rest of binutils had been modified to handle this problem. Clearly the linker hasn't been modified to "undo" the relaxation in such a case, so it is indeed much better not to apply the relaxation unless the branch target is known at assembly time. So the correct fix is indeed to check whether addsy is non-NULL first. Is there a better way to ensure that the relocation entry will be removed completely as a result of the relaxation? Where is the code that ensures that the relocation information is destroyed as a result of addsy being non-NULL? -- 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
