Yang Zhang commented on a discussion: https://gitlab.rtems.org/rtems/rtos/rtems/-/merge_requests/1505#note_160075 Thanks, you are right. I misunderstood the difference between the signed value represented by a PREL31 relocation and the 31-bit field written back to the place. For a backward offset, bit 30 represents the sign in the PREL31 field, while bit 31 must be preserved. Returning the sign-extended value would therefore corrupt bit 31, especially for .ARM.exidx entries. To confirm, I plan to rework this MR by renaming the helper, removing the dead branch, and preserving bit 31 of the original place. I will leave the optional overflow check for a separate change. Does that sound right? -- View it on GitLab: https://gitlab.rtems.org/rtems/rtos/rtems/-/merge_requests/1505#note_160075 You're receiving this email because of your account on gitlab.rtems.org. Unsubscribe from this thread: https://gitlab.rtems.org/-/namespace/49/sent_notifications/5-170apcd4fr09cqwg66ar646mn-1d/unsubscribe | Manage all notifications: https://gitlab.rtems.org/-/profile/notifications | Help: https://gitlab.rtems.org/help
_______________________________________________ bugs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/bugs
