From bb29dfeaa618b52a7f5c785ce1b816983b1d11ee Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Eric Botcazou Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 22:03:38 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] * elfxx-sparc.c (_bfd_sparc_elf_relocate_section): Reinstate bypass for call-to-undefweak reloc overflow. --- bfd/ChangeLog | 5 +++++ bfd/elfxx-sparc.c | 13 ++++++++++++- 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/bfd/ChangeLog b/bfd/ChangeLog index 3a0bb0af8e..5bd1e341ac 100644 --- a/bfd/ChangeLog +++ b/bfd/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,8 @@ +2006-02-01 Eric Botcazou + + * elfxx-sparc.c (_bfd_sparc_elf_relocate_section): Reinstate bypass + for call-to-undefweak reloc overflow. + 2006-01-31 Eric Botcazou * elfxx-sparc.c (_bfd_sparc_elf_relocate_section): Reinstate bypass diff --git a/bfd/elfxx-sparc.c b/bfd/elfxx-sparc.c index 5e8fb2028c..802206fd43 100644 --- a/bfd/elfxx-sparc.c +++ b/bfd/elfxx-sparc.c @@ -3373,7 +3373,18 @@ _bfd_sparc_elf_relocate_section (bfd *output_bfd, struct bfd_link_info *info, break; if (h != NULL) - name = NULL; + { + /* Assume this is a call protected by other code that + detect the symbol is undefined. If this is the case, + we can safely ignore the overflow. If not, the + program is hosed anyway, and a little warning isn't + going to help. */ + if (h->root.type == bfd_link_hash_undefweak + && howto->pc_relative) + break; + + name = NULL; + } else { name = bfd_elf_string_from_elf_section (input_bfd, -- 2.34.1