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 f2LGssX00697
	for linux-mips-outgoing; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 08:54:54 -0800
Received: from tower.ti.com (tower.ti.com [192.94.94.5])
	by oss.sgi.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f2LGsiM00689;
	Wed, 21 Mar 2001 08:54:45 -0800
Received: from dlep8.itg.ti.com ([157.170.134.88])
	by tower.ti.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f2LGscr26808;
	Wed, 21 Mar 2001 10:54:38 -0600 (CST)
Received: from dlep8.itg.ti.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by dlep8.itg.ti.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA13329;
	Wed, 21 Mar 2001 10:54:37 -0600 (CST)
Received: from dlep3.itg.ti.com (dlep3-maint.itg.ti.com [157.170.133.16])
	by dlep8.itg.ti.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA13325;
	Wed, 21 Mar 2001 10:54:37 -0600 (CST)
Received: from ti.com (IDENT:bbrown@bbrowndt.sc.ti.com [158.218.100.126])
	by dlep3.itg.ti.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA16934;
	Wed, 21 Mar 2001 10:54:37 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <3AB8DDCE.CA0F16BC@ti.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 09:58:54 -0700
From: Brady Brown <bbrown@ti.com>
Organization: Texas Instruments
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.14-5.0 i686)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ralf Baechle <ralf@oss.sgi.com>
CC: SGI news group <linux-mips@oss.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: Sign extended 64bit address
References: <3AB7EFF7.A20E4FF3@ti.com> <20010321050407.A3261@bacchus.dhis.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com
Precedence: bulk

Ralf Baechle wrote:

> 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

I'm currently using binutils-2.10.91-2 from Maciej's site. Is there a later
rev that I should look at?