On 05/03/2019 12:33, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
ping
From: Wilco Dijkstra
Sent: 13 February 2019 12:23
To: Ramana Radhakrishnan
Cc: GCC Patches; nd; Olivier Hainque
Subject: Re: [PATCH][ARM] Fix PR89222
Hi Ramana,
ARMv5te bootstrap OK, regression tests pass. OK for commit?
Interesting
ping
From: Wilco Dijkstra
Sent: 13 February 2019 12:23
To: Ramana Radhakrishnan
Cc: GCC Patches; nd; Olivier Hainque
Subject: Re: [PATCH][ARM] Fix PR89222
Hi Ramana,
>> ARMv5te bootstrap OK, regression tests pass. OK for commit?
>
> Interesting bug. armv5te-linux bootstr
Hi Ramana,
>> ARMv5te bootstrap OK, regression tests pass. OK for commit?
>
> Interesting bug. armv5te-linux bootstrap ? Can you share your --target
> and --with-arch flags ?
--target/host/build=arm-linux-gnueabi --with-arch=armv5te --with-mode=arm
>> + if (GET_CODE (base) == SYMBOL_REF)
>
> I
> On 11 Feb 2019, at 22:32, Ramana Radhakrishnan
> wrote:
> Can Olivier or someone who cares about vxworks also give this a quick
> sanity run for the alternate code path once we resolve some of the
> review questions here ? Don't we also need to worry about
> -mslow-flash-data where we get r
Hi Alexander,
> It seems odd to me that the spec requires '(S+A) | T' instead of the (imho
> more intuitive) '(S|T) + A', but apart from the missing diagnostic from the
> linkers, it seems they do as they must and GCC was at fault.
Doing (S+A) | T means bit zero always correctly encodes the Thumb
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 5:35 PM Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
>
> The GCC optimizer can generate symbols with non-zero offset from simple
> if-statements. Bit zero is used for the Arm/Thumb state bit, so relocations
> with offsets fail if it changes bit zero and the relocation forces bit zero
> to true.
On Mon, 11 Feb 2019, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> > With Gold linker this is handled correctly. So it looks to me like a
> > bug in BFD linker, where it ignores any addend (not just +1/-1) when
> > resolving a relocation against a Thumb function.
>
> If the Gold linker doesn't fail that means Gold has
Hi Alexander,
> Just to be sure the issue is analyzed properly: if it's certain that this
> usage
> is not allowed, shouldn't the linker produce a diagnostic instead of silently
> concealing the issue?
The ABI doesn't require this but yes a linker could report a warning if the
addend of a functi
On Mon, 11 Feb 2019, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> The GCC optimizer can generate symbols with non-zero offset from simple
> if-statements. Bit zero is used for the Arm/Thumb state bit, so relocations
> with offsets fail if it changes bit zero and the relocation forces bit zero
> to true. The fix is to
