This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: elf32-arm.c corrections
- From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: "Peter S. Mazinger" <ps dot m at gmx dot net>
- Cc: binutils at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 14:45:32 +0100
- Subject: Re: elf32-arm.c corrections
- Organization: GNU
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0503200200320.5758-300000@lnx.bridge.intra>
On Sun, 2005-03-20 at 01:15, Peter S. Mazinger wrote:
> Hello!
>
> add_dynamic_entry: changes !info->shared to info->executable (PIE)
> corrects typo, and syncs up with other archs (some others could do the
> same). For !relocs the hole part would be omitted, probably some speed gain.
>
> Should the other patch (*3) for allocate_dynrelocs be applied (as done for
> ppc32)?
>
> Why is ELIMINATE_COPY_RELOCS not used for arm?
>
> Thanks, Peter
>
> Please cc to me,
Sorry for the delay replying, I've been snowed under with other work of
late.
I think this is probably OK, but it's hard to be sure because you
haven't followed all the procedures. When submitting a patch you need
to do all of the following (as a minimum):
1) Explain what you are trying to do. Is this a bug that you've found?
If so, provide a testcase. Is it an optimization? If so, why is the
existing code non-optimal. Try to avoid diving in with too much detail.
2) Describe the patch (you've done that, though it could be a little
clearer).
3) Provide a ChangeLog entry describing the mechanics of the patch
(functions that have been changed and how).
4) Provide a patch produced with 'diff -p' or 'diff -up' format (the -p
option is essential so that I can see which functions are being changed
from the patch).
5) State which configurations you've tested the patch on.
Please can you supply the additional information.
R.