I'm being "affected" by this bug. I'm running an ubuntu-provided compiler tagged with "may 2015", but it still has this bug.
My problem is that the patch does not contain enough context for me to be sure where to add the three line fix.
I am tempted to add it near line 8823,
```
insn = (insn & 0xfb0f8f00) | (value & 0xff)
| ((value & 0x700) << 4)
| ((value & 0x800) << 15);
if (relocation < 0)
insn |= 0xa00000;
// PATCH GOES HERE
bfd_put_16 (input_bfd, insn >> 16, hit_data);
bfd_put_16 (input_bfd, insn & 0xffff, hit_data + 2);
```all this in the "case: R_ARM_THM_ALU_PREL_11_0:", which starts on line 8790 (in my source... I should say: 33 lines higher up).
I'm being "affected" by this bug. I'm running an ubuntu-provided compiler tagged with "may 2015", but it still has this bug.
My problem is that the patch does not contain enough context for me to be sure where to add the three line fix.
I am tempted to add it near line 8823,
```
insn = (insn & 0xfb0f8f00) | (value & 0xff)
| ((value & 0x700) << 4)
| ((value & 0x800) << 15);
if (relocation < 0)
insn |= 0xa00000;
// PATCH GOES HERE
bfd_put_16 (input_bfd, insn >> 16, hit_data); ALU_PREL_ 11_0:", which starts on line 8790 (in my source... I should say: 33 lines higher up).
bfd_put_16 (input_bfd, insn & 0xffff, hit_data + 2);
```all this in the "case: R_ARM_THM_
Correct?