This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the binutils project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Your patch on 2001-01-26 is bad

To: "H . J . Lu" <hjl at valinux dot com>
Subject: Re: Your patch on 2001-01-26 is bad
From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 01:52:18 -0800
Cc: binutils at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
References: <20010206203822.A10129@valinux.com> <20010206212624.A23675@redhat.com> <20010206215743.B11544@valinux.com> <20010206234918.B23835@redhat.com> <20010207000823.B2618@valinux.com>

On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 12:08:23AM -0800, H . J . Lu wrote:
> By "work right", I mean you can compare "&function"
> taken inside and outside of DSO.  That is one reason STV_PROTECTED is
> treated almost exactly like STV_DEFAULT.

Hmm.  There are special considerations necessary for ia64 wrt fptrs.
Not everywhere though; I'll see if I can discriminate properly.

There are no such special considerations for Alpha.

r~

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Your patch on 2001-01-26 is bad
  - From: H . J . Lu

References:
- Your patch on 2001-01-26 is bad
  - From: H . J . Lu
- Re: Your patch on 2001-01-26 is bad
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: Your patch on 2001-01-26 is bad
  - From: H . J . Lu
- Re: Your patch on 2001-01-26 is bad
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: Your patch on 2001-01-26 is bad
  - From: H . J . Lu

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]