Re: [PATCH v3] x86: Generate PLT32 relocation for ".long foo@PLT - .L4"

On 30.07.2026 09:30, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2026 at 3:14 PM Jan Beulich <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 27.07.2026 10:44, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> Here is the v3 patch.
>>
>> Thanks, but once again I have to ask: Why did this need rushing in? I asked
> 
> We can get real usage today.

Well, we could have 10 years ago. No reason to rush.

>> before that you please allow at least a week between submission and
>> committing. Perhaps except when a change is entirely uncontroversial, or
>> really urgent to fix e.g. recently introduced breakage (neither of which is
>> the case here).
>>
>> As to the change itself: We have had support for .slong for a long time.
>> Imo
>>
>>         .long foo@PLT - .L4
>>
>> is a bogus construct on 64-bit, and
>>
>>         .slong foo@PLT - .L4
> 
> We have
> 
> .long foo - .L4
> 
> It is natural to add
> 
> .long foo@PLT - .L4

As we add support for a construct previously rejected, imo we'd better
demand a well-formed construct there. We can't remove support for bogus
constructs we have always been accepting, so demanding

	.slong foo - .L4

simply isn't possible.

>> should be demanded there.
>>
>> Then: Why do gas/testsuite/gas/i386/reloc{32,64}.s need fiddling with? .
>> should be as suitable to use there as _start / ptr.
> 
> Since
> 
> .long xtrn@plt - .
> 
> works now.

In which case it should imo be kept, with the "bad" prefix removed. And
the new failure case would be added in addition.

Jan