This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: ppc relocs

From: Alan Modra <amodra at bigpond dot net dot au>
To: Roland McGrath <roland at redhat dot com>
Cc: libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com, Paul Mackerras <paulus at samba dot org>, Steven Munroe <sjmunroe at us dot ibm dot com>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:15:15 +1030
Subject: Re: ppc relocs
References: <20030302125115.GB23858@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au> <200303030016.h230G0722814@magilla.sf.frob.com>

On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 04:16:00PM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > ppc32 does.  gcc currently always produces PIC code for ppc64.
> 
> My question is about the ABI spec, not just current practice.  It sounds
> like it is in fact kosher on ppc32 to have all those 16-bit relocs in a
> dynamic reloc section and ld.so should handle it.  Is that also true on ppc64?

As far as I'm aware, there's nothing in the ppc64 ABI that prohibits
position dependent code.  Thus it's valid to generate the ADDR16 relocs
in a shared library.

-- 
Alan Modra
IBM OzLabs - Linux Technology Centre

References:
- Re: ppc relocs
  - From: Alan Modra
- Re: ppc relocs
  - From: Roland McGrath

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