Re: RFA: pseudo-relocations for pe targets

[Brian Dessent <brian at dessent dot net>]

Kai Tietz wrote:

> as you may saw in prior comments (or by source code), this is exactly the
> reason why I introduced version 1 and version 2. And as I told before for
> 32-bit targets version 1 (the old pseudo-relocation fixup structure) is

Oh right.  I saw the first hunk which sets

-  link_info.pei386_runtime_pseudo_reloc = -1;
+  link_info.pei386_runtime_pseudo_reloc = 2; /* Use by default version
2.  */

...and neglected that this was in pep.em not pe.em.

> prepare at the moment additionally a version of the pseudo-reloc.c file,
> which is able to choose the proper relocation type by itself, but there
> should be at the moment no need to change this for 32-bit!

I still am not clear how you would write a runtime relocator that can
detect whether it's been passed a v1 or a v2 list.  Or is that what you
were implying with the part of the v2 spec about addend == flags == 0
being interpreted as a no-op?  In other words, you're saying that the v2
list would distinguish itself by having as the first entry an element
with all zeros (as that would never naturally occur with a v1 list since
a pseudo-reloc is only required when addend != 0)?

Brian