This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: elf32-arm.c corrections
- From: "Peter S. Mazinger" <ps dot m at gmx dot net>
- To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- Cc: binutils at sourceware dot org
- Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 18:27:08 +0100 (CET)
- Subject: Re: elf32-arm.c corrections
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 10:26:12AM +0100, Peter S. Mazinger wrote:
> > On Sat, 19 Mar 2005, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 02:15:24AM +0100, Peter S. Mazinger wrote:
> > > > Hello!
> > > >
> > > > add_dynamic_entry: changes !info->shared to info->executable (PIE)
> > > > corrects typo, and syncs up with other archs (some others could do the
> > > > same). For !relocs the hole part would be omitted, probably some speed gain.
> > >
> > > Um, why are disabling the setting of DT_TEXTREL for shared libraries?
> >
> > The 1 line removal is because none of the archs has that.
> > The i386 implementation has everything within if (relocs), the other
> > archs have it outside, but DT_TEXTREL is only valid for if (relocs), so we
> > would omit that part gaining some speed
>
> Ah, not enough context in the diff. Makes sense.
Please apply then, I have signed aggreement, no cvs access
Thanks, Peter
>
> > > > Should the other patch (*3) for allocate_dynrelocs be applied (as done for
> > > > ppc32)?
> > >
> > > Probably.
> >
> > I am asking it, because no other arch has that, only ppc32, so there must
> > be some other solution to that as well.
> >
> > >
> > > > Why is ELIMINATE_COPY_RELOCS not used for arm?
> > >
> > > Because no one implemented it.
> >
> > Would the implementation make the binaries smaller?
>
> Not appreciably.
>
>
--
Peter S. Mazinger <ps dot m at gmx dot net> ID: 0xA5F059F2
Key fingerprint = 92A4 31E1 56BC 3D5A 2D08 BB6E C389 975E A5F0 59F2