This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the binutils project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [patch] new sh relocs


On Sep  5, 2003, DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com> wrote:

>> Unfortunately we're the ones that got the ABI wrong, and Renesas tools
>> don't emit any EI_* markers we could use to tell, so we should just
>> take the risk and change the meaning of relocs we've been generating
>> with the wrong meaning.

> So where are we on this patch?  Can I commit it, or what?

Since Renesas pretty much told us to decide which numbers to use
within the 0xa-0x20 reserved range, here are the changes I'd like us
to make:

33 (0x21)  R_SH_SWITCH8  =>  move to 0x18, just before R_SH_SWITCH16

34 (0x22)  R_SH_GNU_VTINHERIT  => remove
35 (0x23)  R_SH_GNU_VTENTRY    => remove

The C++ vtable GCing feature has been removed from GCC, there's no
point in allocating official relocs (or using using relocs from our
reserved range) for this purpose.


36 (0x24)  R_SH_LOOP_START => move to 0x16 or 0xa, your call

37 (0x25)  R_SH_LOOP_END => move to 0x17 or 0xb, your call

I used to like 0x16 and 0x17 better, but now I'm thinking using 0xa
and 0xb for GNU extensions would more clearly mark the region reserved
for us.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva   Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer                 aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp        oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist                Professional serial bug killer


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]