On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:04:02 +0100, Nick Clifton wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> > To my
> > surprise, I found that the compiler instead[2] produced the deprecated
> > R_ARM_PLT32 relocation. Considering the deprecated state of this
> > relocation type, should this be considered a bug?
>
> Yes...
>
> > Be
On 14/10/11 19:31, Ben Gamari wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 18:38:26 +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>> On 14/10/11 17:40, Ben Gamari wrote:
>>> I was recently trying to test GCC's behavior in producing various types
>>> of ARM relocations. In particular, I was trying to produce an
>>> R_ARM_JUMP24
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 18:38:26 +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 14/10/11 17:40, Ben Gamari wrote:
> > I was recently trying to test GCC's behavior in producing various types
> > of ARM relocations. In particular, I was trying to produce an
> > R_ARM_JUMP24 relocation, which requires veneer. It wa
On 14/10/11 17:40, Ben Gamari wrote:
> I was recently trying to test GCC's behavior in producing various types
> of ARM relocations. In particular, I was trying to produce an
> R_ARM_JUMP24 relocation, which requires veneer. It was suggested that
> the code most likely to produce this relocation wo
I was recently trying to test GCC's behavior in producing various types
of ARM relocations. In particular, I was trying to produce an
R_ARM_JUMP24 relocation, which requires veneer. It was suggested that
the code most likely to produce this relocation would involve some sort
of tail recursion. I wr
