https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99783
--- Comment #6 from shorne at gmail dot com ---
Ok, let me have a look.
On Fri, Dec 31, 2021, 5:34 AM giulio.benetti at benettiengineering dot com <
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99783
>
> --- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99783
--- Comment #7 from shorne at gmail dot com ---
On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 09:59:57PM +, shorne at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99783
>
> --- Comment #6 from shorne at gmail dot com ---
> Ok, let me have a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99783
--- Comment #9 from shorne at gmail dot com ---
I was able to debug this.
Basically, the code to avoid overflow by masking the relocation value with
0x fails if the relocation value has the 16-bit sign bit set. I.e. 0x90e4
has 0x8000 set when
