This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] PIC support for SH
- To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] PIC support for SH
- From: NIIBE Yutaka <gniibe at chroot dot org>
- Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 16:17:53 +0900
- Cc: kaz Kojima <kkojima at rr dot iij4u dot or dot jp>, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- References: <200008290305.MAA22429@rr.iij4u.or.jp><email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><E13XD5Cemail@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org>
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> It is my understanding that Hitachi had told us to use this range.
> But I may be mistaken.
Strange. Hitachi assigned 160-167 for that, here in Japan. Perhaps,
there would be some dis-communication. We'll check it again too.
> > In our implementation, we use the assigned number (by Hitachi)
> > 160-167 for this purpose.
> Leaving a huge hole in the numbering? That sounded too awful.
Agreed. Unfortunately, yes. It seemed that they didn't understand
how useful the shared librarie is, at least at that time. Then, they
allocated not-likely-to-be-used area with some sort of prejudice.
However, now, with working GNU C libarary port which supports dynamic
loading, we can demonstrate how useful it is, you know. :-)
IMHO, if the processor has MMU and Linux being ported, why not support
dynamic load? I believe that it could be quite useful for embedded
We'll get back to you, later.