>> if they got that far (as far as 64 bit alignment goes) so the resulting
>> binary should core on an alignment fault (which is better in my mind than
>> a reloc error).
>
>Well, with the unpatched sources the relocations of the originally 
>R_SPARC_UA64 relocations are completely wrong:
>These relocations are somehow recomputed at linking time, with modifying 
>the address they point to. After this recomputation they point to a 
>location which is past EOF, which is clearly wrong. 

They try to use the generic reloc function which isn't gonna handle these
quite right.

The main problem is honestly after the switch statement which tries to
reconvert all UA ref's back to normally aligned ones any UA64's that are
left are just plain wrong. That's why these were causing problems since
they were only aligned at 4 bytes and nothing in the sparc code can really
deal with unaligned 32 or 64 bit reloc's (and these were unaligned for 64).

James