Re: [RFC]: patch #2 for Sun C compiled target programs

Michael Mueller
2004-06-24T20:57:00Z

Mark Kettenis wrote:
> Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 17:04:33 +0200
> From: Michael Mueller <m.mueller99@kay-mueller.de>
>
> >
> > The real problem is that dbxread.c was initially written as 32-bit
> > only code. The sign-extension problem you're seeing here can also be
> > interpreted as a 64-bit-dirty issue.
>
> So how can it be fixed?
>
> Not sure. As I said, it's not easy. As far as I understand things,
> INTERNALIZE_SYMBOL() should look at n_type to decide whether n_value
> should be treated as a signed or an unsigned value. The problem seems
> to be that n_value can either be interpreted as an address or as an
> offset. Addresses should be sign-extended based on what
> bfd_get_sign_extend_vma() tells us. Offsets should probably always be
> sign-extended.
>
> Mark
>

How about sign extending it a bit alter in process_one_symbol when we
find out it's a stack variable? I cannot imagine an architecture where a
stack variable has an absolute address. But my imagination is limited.

Michael