Re: 2.15 branch merge

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>]

On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 12:47:15AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Apr  9, 2004, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > I'm not sure it affects non-FDPIC as well; I hope not, since the
> > non-fDPIC emulation sets the page size to 0x1000, but I'll have to
> > check.
> 
> Checked.  It *does* change the alignment of PT_LOAD segments to 0x4000
> even for binaries linked with -melf32frv :-(
> 
> I suppose I could create a new bfd arch used for object files that
> have the EF_FRV_FDPIC bit set, but this would suck in terms of
> duplication of code :-(  Any better ideas?  Is increasing the loadable
> segment alignment a big deal?

Depends on your target, of course: if you have 4K pages, and page-level
virtual memory mappings, then it doesn't much matter.  The extra pages
will waste up to 12 KB worth of virtual address space.  If you don't
have an MMU (doesn't the FRV port support uclinux as a kernel?) then
that might be a much bigger deal, since you'll be wasting real RAM.

Perhaps you should look at COMMONPAGESIZE, which will probably fix
this.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer