https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24226
--- Comment #3 from GraceLiu <liuyingying19 at huawei dot com> ---
(In reply to Jim Wilson from comment #1)
> The medany explicit-relocs problem is different than the one here. This
> requires an auipc to trigger, and there is no auipc here.
>
> This looks like a compiler bug if this is compiler generated code, or a
> programmer error if this is hand written assembly code. It is not safe to
> use
> lw a3,%lo(g_3030+4)(a5)
> unless g_3030 has 8-byte alignment, and if it does, then the %lo can not
> overflow.
>
> The current linker sources will give an error if it detects an auipc/lw
> overflow, but I hadn't considered this case with an incorrect lui/lw
> instruction pair. Even though this is compiler/user error, it would still
> be useful if the linker gave an error for it instead of silently producing
> incorrect code, as finding this incorrect code after the fact is likely to
> be hard.
Thanks Jim for your comments.
We are not using any hand written assembly code or any customized link script.
The code is generated by compiler.
The struct of g_3030 is
#pragma pack(push)
#pragma pack(1)
struct S0 {
signed f0 : 4;
const volatile int64_t f1;
volatile signed f2 : 1;
signed f3 : 31;
unsigned f4 : 8;
signed f5 : 20;
unsigned f6 : 5;
};
#pragma pack(pop)
static const struct S0 g_3030 = {0,-9L,-0,-22553,7,-841,1};/* VOLATILE GLOBAL
g_3030 */
we tried to print the value of -9L in g_3030 but the value is wrong. I have
attached the testcase.
--
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
