On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 10:43:43PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Mohan Kumar M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Once again replying to Alan's correct email id. > > > > Please check for my reply at the end of mail. > > > > Sorry for the inconvenience. > > Ok. So from the looks of it we have a single toc and really are > not using the opd, at all. So if we can strip that out in the ppc > build that would be great. Otherwise it looks safe simply to ignore > relocations against the opd section. But just stripping the symbols > looks better.
No, please don't discard .opd. If you do so, you'll break code that takes addresses of functions. > > Even though the .rela.opd section has undefined entries, we skipped > > applying relocation for these entries and the code is working as > > expected. [snip] > > 0000000000b8 000000000033 R_PPC64_TOC > > 0000000000000000 I assume the "undefined" entry is the R_PPC64_TOC reloc above. When this relocation type has no symbol, it should resolve to the TOC pointer used in that object file. -- Alan Modra IBM OzLabs - Linux Technology Centre _______________________________________________ fastboot mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/fastboot
