This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org 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: [PATCH] Implement x86 SIZE32/SIZE64 relocations

From: David Miller <davem at davemloft dot net>
To: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
Cc: roland at hack dot frob dot com, aj at suse dot com, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:14:06 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Implement x86 SIZE32/SIZE64 relocations
References: <CAMe9rOrLTAdqEy2=4OxAeX4v1vF83sadWE1KAr7a8J22AiHrDA@mail.gmail.com><20130116190624.6B4F72C0B9@topped-with-meat.com><CAMe9rOo3Cord3_SJH77kRZZnu4VCC_VvtqtN0X8qTXLyFeT8hA@mail.gmail.com>

If anything, for relocations meant to be found in shared objects, it
is the dynamic linker which is absolutely the first place support
should show up.  It should not be dependent upon binutils support at
all.

GLIBC dynamic linker support is the one that needs the largest amount
of lead time, and the one for which it is the most difficult for a
developer or use to integrate into their environment on their own.

This even applies to the person who writes the binutils support for
emitting the relocations themselves.

So I definitely think HJ's patch should go in as soon as possible.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] Implement x86 SIZE32/SIZE64 relocations
  - From: Roland McGrath
- Re: [PATCH] Implement x86 SIZE32/SIZE64 relocations
  - From: H.J. Lu

References:
- Re: [PATCH] Implement x86 SIZE32/SIZE64 relocations
  - From: H.J. Lu
- Re: [PATCH] Implement x86 SIZE32/SIZE64 relocations
  - From: Roland McGrath
- Re: [PATCH] Implement x86 SIZE32/SIZE64 relocations
  - From: H.J. Lu

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