> If it is agreed that gas should be generating R_SPARC_UA32, then
> should I go ahead and submit a bug for this issue?
I guess we don't want to penalize GNU ld either, so maybe a command line
switch would be the best approach.
What's your opinion, Jakub? The thread starts here:
http://lists.gn
If it is agreed that gas should be generating R_SPARC_UA32, then
should I go ahead and submit a bug for this issue?
Thanks,
Andrew
On 8/15/05, Eric Botcazou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Silly question, perhaps, but why not have gas generate R_SPARC_UA32?
>
> That indeed appears to be the most
> Silly question, perhaps, but why not have gas generate R_SPARC_UA32?
That indeed appears to be the most appropriate solution and would match what
GCC emits for its own DWARF-2 debug info (i.e. .uaword instead of .word
directives). Perhaps Jakub can give some insights.
--
Eric Botcazou
_
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 04:28:12PM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > So who is right here? Is there really an alignment problem with the
> > debug sections in the object file, or is the solaris linker just
> > confused? If there is a problem, why doesn't binutils ld complain?
>
> GNU ld supports una
> So who is right here? Is there really an alignment problem with the
> debug sections in the object file, or is the solaris linker just
> confused? If there is a problem, why doesn't binutils ld complain?
GNU ld supports unaligned R_SPARC_32 relocations, while Sun ld doesn't. The
relocations sho
