This is the mail archive of the 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: [RFC][PATCH] MIPS ifunc for binutils

So I don't mess up the conversation, I'll make the easy changes so far suggested, play with preemption and resubmit the patch for review. It will allow me to focus on the ABI issues going forward. I also have a request to produce a formal ABI doc for the MIPS ifunc implementation. I will add that as well so that when we come to agreement, we will have agreed to the same thing.

When resubmitting, do I change the subject of the email. Otherwise I will keep it as "Re: [RFC][PATCH] MIPS ifunc for binutils".

I worked for MIPS and then SGI for a long time so my nomenclature needs to be updated to fit binutils. For me there were 3 flavors of what we called executables:
    call-shared (CPIC - not exactly what it is in gnu land)
    shared (PIC).

I think from what you have stated that these translate to:
    normal executable (ET_EXEC)
    PIE (ET_DYN)
    DSO (ET_DYN)

I will change to use the gnu version. I still struggle with not calling the dynamic linker "rld". Old dog, new tricks.



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