This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] Indicate dependency on personality routines for ARM EHABI
- From: Ian Lance Taylor <ian at airs dot com>
- To: Julian Brown <julian at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: 09 Feb 2005 11:32:57 -0500
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Indicate dependency on personality routines for ARM EHABI
- References: <420A38B6.3010609@codesourcery.com>
Julian Brown <julian@codesourcery.com> writes:
> /* These relocs are only used within the ARM assembler. They are not
> (at present) written to any object files. */
> + BFD_RELOC_ARM_NONE,
Why not just use BFD_RELOC_NONE here?
In general you should only create a target specific BFD_RELOC enum
constant for relocations which only arise on a particular target. For
example, note that there is no BFD_ARM_RELOC_32.
More generally, I think it's kind of dubious to use a zero reloc to
mean anything at all. And why do you need a relocation entry? Why is
it not sufficient to enter the symbol in the symbol table as an
undefined symbol? Is the use of a zero reloc mandated by the ARM ABI?
Ian