> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Carmelo Amoroso > Sent: den 6 januari 2009 22:14 > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [PATCH] ldso - adding HAVE_RELATIVE_RELOCS define - updated > > [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 ?
I do, and you should add a test that the number of non relative relocs are zero and error out it they aren't. In the long run we should get rid of -Bsymbolic I think but that is a problem for another day. Jocke _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
