This is the mail archive of the libc-hacker@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the glibc project.
Note that libc-hacker is a closed list. You may look at the archives of this list, but subscription and posting are not open.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote: >> +#define R_SH_TLS_GD_32 128 >> +#define R_SH_TLS_LD_32 129 >> +#define R_SH_TLS_LDO_32 130 >> +#define R_SH_TLS_IE_32 131 >> +#define R_SH_TLS_LE_32 132 >> +#define R_SH_TLS_DTPMOD32 133 >> +#define R_SH_TLS_DTPOFF32 134 >> +#define R_SH_TLS_TPOFF32 135 >> +#define R_SH_TLS_GD_MOV 136 >> +#define R_SH_TLS_GD_CALLMOV 137 >> +#define R_SH_TLS_LDM_MOV 138 >> +#define R_SH_TLS_LDO_MOV 139 >> +#define R_SH_TLS_LD_CALLMOV 140 >> +#define R_SH_TLS_IE_MOV 141 >> +#define R_SH_TLS_LE_MOV 142 > > These relocation numbers are already taken in the Object File (ELF) > Specification published by Hitachi in 1996. Hmm... We can't use these numbers if they will be used in GNU with the original meaning given by that specification. Alex, can you please recommend the new relocation numbers? Should we consider sh64 case? kaz
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |