On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 10:13 PM, Carmelo Amoroso <[email protected]> wrote: > [email protected] wrote: >> >> Hi, >> I moved the HAVE_RELATIVE_RELOCS to the dl-sysdep.h. >> Also found there were warnings of non used variables due to the >> ifdef'ed block. The rest is the same. >> >> >> As the former comment suggested, I added the HAVE_RELATIVE_RELOCS and >> and reduced the linker code size. >> >> [Nr] Name Type Addr Off Size ES Flg Lk >> Inf Al >> -[ 6] .text PROGBITS 00000a2c 000a2c 00323e 00 AX 0 >> 0 4 >> +[ 6] .text PROGBITS 00000a2c 000a2c 003133 00 AX 0 >> 0 4 >> >> I suppose most of the linkers support -Bsymbolic, >> but I could verify only i386 and arm. >> Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <[email protected]> > > Hi Jiri, > sorry for not having commented this in the previou reply, > but I'd prefer to use a "positive logic" and define a macro > for those archs that needs to perform bootstrap relocation, instead > of specifying that the arch has only relative relocations at bootstrap. > > So, instead of using if !defined (HAVE_RELATIVE_RELOCS), I'd wrote > #ifdef ARCH_NEEDS_BOOTSTRAP_RELOCS or something similar. > > So, just define the macro for those archs that require this. > > Do you agree ?
hi, I think it is fine, I'll add this define to each and every arch besides arm and i386. Plz let me know if you are aware of any other arch, that does not need bootstrap relocs. > >> --- > > [SNIP] >> >> } >> +#endif // !defined(HAVE_RELATIVE_RELOCS) > > and do not use C++ style comment, please. np :) > > > Thanks, > Carmelo > I'll send new patch shortly thanks, jirka _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
