This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: New .nops directive, to aid Linux alternatives patching?
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, H.J. Lu wrote:
> My implementation uses the existing relaxation frame work.
> When we are processing .nop, we don't know exactly how big the
> the NOP size will be. We allocate a frag with the maximum size
> and set the exact size after relaxation. After relaxation is done,
> all frags are converted to rs_fill. We can add rs_fill_nop to
> support arbitrary .nop directive size. But I don't know if it is
> necessary.
Right, so this is needed for argument expressions using forward
references. Understood and accepted. Thank your for patience.
Maciej
- References:
- New .nops directive, to aid Linux alternatives patching?
- Re: New .nops directive, to aid Linux alternatives patching?
- Re: New .nops directive, to aid Linux alternatives patching?
- Re: New .nops directive, to aid Linux alternatives patching?
- Re: New .nops directive, to aid Linux alternatives patching?
- Re: New .nops directive, to aid Linux alternatives patching?
- Re: New .nops directive, to aid Linux alternatives patching?
- Re: New .nops directive, to aid Linux alternatives patching?
- Re: New .nops directive, to aid Linux alternatives patching?
- Re: New .nops directive, to aid Linux alternatives patching?
- Re: New .nops directive, to aid Linux alternatives patching?
- Re: New .nops directive, to aid Linux alternatives patching?
- Re: New .nops directive, to aid Linux alternatives patching?
- Re: New .nops directive, to aid Linux alternatives patching?
- Re: New .nops directive, to aid Linux alternatives patching?
- Re: New .nops directive, to aid Linux alternatives patching?