This is the mail archive of the 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

On 01/16/2013 03:42 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Roland McGrath <>
> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:33:21 -0800 (PST)
>> If it's so well settled, then you can commit the changes to binutils and
>> report here that they are in binutils already when you propose your patch.
> I strongly disagree with this ordering requirement.
> The whole world is not binutils, there are many tool sets that might
> want to emit these ABI standard defined relocations.  The most
> important dependency is the dynamic linker, and it should support
> all cpu ABI defined relocations regardless of whatever binutils can
> emit it or not.

The ABI standard is the arbiter of the relocations.

Failing that, yes, binutils is the arbiter of the relocations.

Once an ABI defines the relocations I have no problem 
including them in glibc.

Even if the binutils work exposes a problem with the relocations
there isn't anything that uses them yet so you can just change
their meaning in the dynamic linker anyway?

I see no clear reason to wait for binutils to implement a relocation.


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