Re: [PATCH] PIC support for SH

[Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>]

On Sep  7, 2000, NIIBE Yutaka <gniibe@chroot.org> wrote:

>> +  RELOC_NUMBER (R_SH_GOT32, 10)
>> +  RELOC_NUMBER (R_SH_PLT32, 11)
>> +  RELOC_NUMBER (R_SH_COPY, 12)
>> +  RELOC_NUMBER (R_SH_GLOB_DAT, 13)
>> +  RELOC_NUMBER (R_SH_JMP_SLOT, 14)
>> +  RELOC_NUMBER (R_SH_RELATIVE, 15)
>> +  RELOC_NUMBER (R_SH_GOTOFF, 16)
>> +  RELOC_NUMBER (R_SH_GOTPC, 17)

> Sorry for my late response, but could I ask you a question?

Sure :-)

> Is there any reason for the value 10--17 here?

It is my understanding that Hitachi had told us to use this range.
But I may be mistaken.

> In our implementation, we use the assigned number (by Hitachi)
> 160-167 for this purpose.

Leaving a huge hole in the numbering?  That sounded too awful.

> I've heard that other vendor's tool already uses 10--17 for different
> purpose.

Then we may have to renumber them.

> It's OK for us (Linux port for SH) to re-compile all the binaries
> now as it's still young.

That's what we thought :-)

> But I'm afraid of already distributed other vendor's binaries other
> than Linux.

Yep.  I'll check with the base :-)

-- 
Alexandre Oliva   Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer                  aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp        oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist    *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me