Re: R_PPC_REL24 relocation out of range

["Bradley C. Midgley" <bcmidgle@sanluis.uccs.edu>]

Dan,

thanks for weighing in. people at work are suggesting that this kind of
problem shows that ppc isn't stable enough for real work but i want to
show them it's not *representative* -- it's *anomalous* :)

On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 10:02:37PM -0600, Bradley C. Midgley wrote:
> > it seems that -fPIC doesn't suppress REL24 type relocations:
>
> First, I'm not sure it's supposed to

is there another way i can tell the compiler that 24-bit relocations are
likely to be out of range? i thought -fPIC did that but if it doesn't fit
this purpose, please let me know.

>, but more importantly, R_PPC_REL32
> and R_PPC_PLTREL24 are not R_PPC_REL24 relocations.

i have to admit i don't know the difference. i only noticed that .o files
didn't have any R_PPC_REL24 relocations but the .so generated from them
doesn't have any R_PPC_PLTREL24 so i figured they were the same thing in
different forms:

bmidgley@clam:~/cockpit/build/linuxgcc/scripting$ readelf -r PerlWrapper.o
| grep getenv
  00000128  07612 R_PPC_PLTREL24        00000000  getenv
+ 0
bmidgley@clam:~/cockpit/build/linuxgcc/scripting$ readelf -r
../modules/libscripting-1-0.so | grep getenv
  000177b0  0850a R_PPC_REL24           00000000  getenv
+ 0
  0003b57c  08515 R_PPC_JMP_SLOT        00000000  getenv
+ 0

-- 
bcmidgle@sanluis.uccs.edu
Brad Midgley