This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: RFC:elf32-m68k.c for coldfire v4e
- From: Alan Modra <amodra at bigpond dot net dot au>
- To: "C Jaiprakash, Noida" <cjaiprakash at hcltech dot com>
- Cc: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com, cjaiprakash at noida dot hcltech dot com
- Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:06:32 +1030
- Subject: Re: RFC:elf32-m68k.c for coldfire v4e
- References: <267988DEACEC5A4D86D5FCD780313FBB044A8245@exch-03.noida.hcltech.com>
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 03:26:09PM +0530, C Jaiprakash, Noida wrote:
> Though these changes should be valid for m68k as well but the size of PLT is
> increased a bit. What I want to know is will this be acceptable?
No. ld.so modifies the PLT, so the layout cannot change.
> If not then
> How can I decide which PLT is to be used among m68k, cpu32 or cfv4e? I may
> create a new target may be coldfire-linux but there will be a code
> duplication of elf32-m68k.c.
Yes, you should use a new target, but there should be no need for code
duplication. The way you do this is by including elf32-target.h again
in elf32-m68k.c, with some changed defines. A good example to look at
is the Symbian support in elf32-arm.c, which happens to use a
different PLT layout to other ARM targets.
--
Alan Modra
IBM OzLabs - Linux Technology Centre