[committed, PATCH] Remove Disp16|Disp32 from 64-bit direct branches
H.J. Lu
hjl.tools@gmail.com
Tue May 12 13:57:00 GMT 2015
More information about the Binutils mailing list
Tue May 12 13:57:00 GMT 2015
- Previous message (by thread): [committed, PATCH] Remove Disp16|Disp32 from 64-bit direct branches
- Next message (by thread): [committed, PATCH] Remove Disp16|Disp32 from 64-bit direct branches
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 6:49 AM, Michael Matz <matz@suse.de> wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 12 May 2015, H.J. Lu wrote: > >> This is what I got now: >> >> [hjl@gnu-6 tmp]$ cat x.s >> .text >> data16 jmp foo >> bar: >> mov %eax,%edx >> [hjl@gnu-6 tmp]$ gcc -c x.s >> [hjl@gnu-6 tmp]$ objdump -dwr x.o >> >> x.o: file format elf64-x86-64 >> >> >> Disassembly of section .text: >> >> 0000000000000000 <bar-0x4>: >> 0: 66 e9 00 00 89 c2 data16 jmpq ffffffffc2890006 >> <bar+0xffffffffc2890002> 2: R_X86_64_PC16 foo-0x2 >> >> 0000000000000004 <bar>: >> 4: 89 c2 mov %eax,%edx >> [hjl@gnu-6 tmp]$ >> >> Is that the same as what you got with binutils 2.25? > > This is with 2.23, so your patch would cause a regression: 1. This happened before 20140923. 2. Can you speculate what " jmpw 4" does? > x.o: file format elf64-x86-64 > > > Disassembly of section .text: > > 0000000000000000 <bar-0x4>: > 0: 66 e9 00 00 jmpw 4 <bar> > 2: R_X86_64_PC16 foo-0x2 > > 0000000000000004 <bar>: > 4: 89 c2 mov %eax,%edx > > > Ciao, > Michael. -- H.J.
- Previous message (by thread): [committed, PATCH] Remove Disp16|Disp32 from 64-bit direct branches
- Next message (by thread): [committed, PATCH] Remove Disp16|Disp32 from 64-bit direct branches
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Binutils mailing list