[PRELIMINARY]: Patch to add bfd support for IBM s390
Geoff Keating
geoffk@cygnus.com
Thu Aug 24 15:08:00 GMT 2000
> Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 12:55:24 -0700
> From: Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>
> +/* additional s390/elf relocations */
> + BFD_RELOC_390_8,
> + BFD_RELOC_390_12,
> + BFD_RELOC_390_16,
> + BFD_RELOC_390_GOT12,
> + BFD_RELOC_390_GOT32,
> + BFD_RELOC_390_PLT32,
> + BFD_RELOC_390_COPY,
> + BFD_RELOC_390_GLOB_DAT,
> + BFD_RELOC_390_JMP_SLOT,
> + BFD_RELOC_390_RELATIVE,
> + BFD_RELOC_390_GOTOFF,
> + BFD_RELOC_390_GOTPC,
> + BFD_RELOC_390_GOT16,
> + BFD_RELOC_390_PC16DBL,
> + BFD_RELOC_390_PLT16DBL,
Most of it seemed OK, although I didn't look at the s390-specific
files too closely.
I have some comments about this bit though:
- Comment. Comments are full sentences, they start with an uppercase
letter and end with a full stop and two spaces. I know that
this isn't always done, but it should be. It also looks like best
practise is to put a comment above each reloc saying what it does.
- What's the difference between BFD_RELOC_390_8 and BFD_RELOC_8?
I suspect they're the same, in which case BFD_RELOC_8 should be
used. Likewise, although there is no BFD_RELOC_12, perhaps there
should be. Likewise, there's a BFD_RELOC_32_GOT_PCREL and
BFD_RELOC_32_GOTOFF, one of which might be the same as
BFD_RELOC_390_GOT32.
...and perhaps if there was a BFD_RELOC_COPY we wouldn't need each
port to define one... although that's now starting to look like hard
work. At least use the relocs that are already there, though.
--
- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@cygnus.com>
More information about the Binutils
mailing list