From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
	by oss.sgi.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) id f2L46a310877
	for linux-mips-outgoing; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 20:06:36 -0800
Received: from dea.waldorf-gmbh.de (u-251-19.karlsruhe.ipdial.viaginterkom.de [62.180.19.251])
	by oss.sgi.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f2L46XM10874
	for <linux-mips@oss.sgi.com>; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 20:06:34 -0800
Received: (from ralf@localhost)
	by dea.waldorf-gmbh.de (8.11.1/8.11.1) id f2L447j03282;
	Wed, 21 Mar 2001 05:04:07 +0100
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 05:04:07 +0100
From: Ralf Baechle <ralf@oss.sgi.com>
To: Brady Brown <bbrown@ti.com>
Cc: SGI news group <linux-mips@oss.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: Sign extended 64bit address
Message-ID: <20010321050407.A3261@bacchus.dhis.org>
References: <3AB7EFF7.A20E4FF3@ti.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <3AB7EFF7.A20E4FF3@ti.com>; from bbrown@ti.com on Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 05:04:07PM -0700
X-Accept-Language: de,en,fr
Sender: owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 05:04:07PM -0700, Brady Brown wrote:

> I have run into the earlier mentioned problem of objcopy not correctly
> dealing with the sign extended 64 bit address generated by the new
> tools. Is there an update on this issue? Any good work-arounds or short
> time solutions?

I don't have your old report at hand but somewhen during the past year
binutils received a number of fixes related to signed/unsigned addresses,
so you should try a recent copy of binutils.

   Ralf