Subject: Re: your mail
To: None <,,>
From: Olaf Seibert <>
List: tech-toolchain
Date: 12/29/1998 15:54:22
Krister Walfridsson <> wrote:
>The problem is that the old assembler doesn't handle this! It just
>silently goes on, generating bogus output. But it is correct for
>this case! (and it is too big a bug to be "bug compatible" with... :-)
>You can try this by assembling the two following files
>   reloc=0x80000
>      .text
>   kwa:
>      .word   0x2323
>      .word   kwa-reloc
>      .text
>   kwa:
>      .word   0x2323
>      .word   kwa-0
>and compare the result. They are identical! What is happening is that
>the old gas silently truncates 'reloc' to 16 bits.

I would say that if somebody wrote a .word directive, and the value does
not fit into a word, then truncation is the logical thing to do.

>So rejecting your code is not a bug in

I warning might be in order, but I'd say outright rejection is overdoing

>   /Krister
___ Olaf 'Rhialto' Seibert - rhialto@polder.ubc. ---- Unauthorized duplication,
\X/ ---- while sometimes necessary, is never as good as the real thing.