This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
RE: SH relocation differences in older versions of the binutils
- From: Jeff Baker <jbaker at qnx dot com>
- To: 'DJ Delorie' <dj at redhat dot com>, Jeff Baker <jbaker at qnx dot com>
- Cc: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 10:51:54 -0500
- Subject: RE: SH relocation differences in older versions of the binutils
> Given that the old relocs only happen with -relax, and gcc doesn't use
> the new ones at all, have you even encountered such a collision yet?
I haven't but I can't guarantee our customers that they never will until I
know more about this. I'm trying to prepare for the inevitable flood of
> Otherwise, I don't know of any way to test these. The old numbering
> was wrong; if anything the old ones would need the special comment.
> The new numbering reflects compatibility with Hitachi's tools, which
> we cannot control. So, even if we added a flag, you would not be able
> to rely on it.
As far as this goes I'm thinking about the more distant future. Personally
I can't see any harm in having this information in the binary but I can see
it having potential benefits.