[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140617141455.GG179@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 10:14:55 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: arch-specific reloc.h inconsistencies (bugs?)
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 01:01:32AM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> 4. mips has a REL32 relocation which doubles as both a relative
> (adjust against self's load address) relocation and a symbolic
> (adjust to point to the address a symbol resolves to) one. The
> current logic for which way to treat it as is based on the resolved
> symbol value (sym_val, whether it's zero or nonzero) whereas I
> think it should be based on whether the symbol was found or not
> (i.e. whether def.sym is null or not). This likely does not matter
> in practice but it seems like a bug.
No, whether the symbol was found is wrong too. I think it should be on
whether there was a symbol reference to begin with (since some relocs
may have references that are only weak and thus don't resolve; these
are still symbolic relocations, not relative ones).
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
