Skip to content

Consider signed and unsigned relocations for ABS and PREL relocations. #402

Description

@smithp35

The R_<CLS>_ABS32 and R_<CLS>_ABS16 relocations are defined with an overflow that spans both signed and unsigned use cases such as
-2^32 <= X < 2^32 for R_<CLS>_ABS32. The vast majority of use cases are unsigned.

The R_<CLS>_PREL32 and R_<CLS>_PREL16 relocations have recently been defined as signed for overflow purposes (#401).

Given that AAELF64 is not short of relocation codes it could be possible to define additional signed/unsigned codes so that the object producer can be precise about the overflow intentions.

Activity

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    aaelf64Issue affects ELF for the Arm Architecture

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions