Re: powerpc new PLT and GOT

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>]

On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 12:14:58AM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> I could, but .plt is traditionally a (somewhat) regular array.  .glink
> doesn't really fit this model since it could be dispersed throughout the
> text segment, something you might want to do in large programs where the
> 24-bit powerpc branch offset is limiting.  I know I don't support such

This is not exclusive to PowerPC.  For instance, the ARM PLT could be
distributed this way (and that would be a useful thing to support for
sufficiently large applications - but ARM doesn't have a ton of those).
And I've implemented irregularly sized entries in ARM's .plt.

> a .glink at the moment on powerpc (as we do on powerpc64), but I might
> in the future.  In that case you couldn't output .glink to its own
> output section, so gdb could not use the section name to skip plt call
> stubs.

Sure, it's not perfect - but it's more traditional to use the name when
it's available.  Once dispersed, of course, GDB needs another solution.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC