[PATCH] PIC support for SH

[NIIBE Yutaka]

Alexandre Oliva wrote:
 > from  Alexandre Oliva  <aoliva@redhat.com>
 > 
 > 	* sh.h (R_SH_GOT32, R_SH_PLT32, R_SH_COPY, R_SH_GLOB_DAT,
 > 	R_SH_JMP_SLOT, R_SH_RELATIVE, R_SH_GOTOFF, R_SH_GOTPC): New relocs.
 > 	(R_SH_FIRST_INVALID_RELOC): Adjust.
 > 
 > Index: include/elf/sh.h
 > ===================================================================
 > RCS file: /cvs/src/src/include/elf/sh.h,v
 > retrieving revision 1.4
 > diff -u -p -r1.4 sh.h
 > --- include/elf/sh.h	2000/06/07 03:43:33	1.4
 > +++ include/elf/sh.h	2000/08/31 14:14:39
 > @@ -63,7 +63,15 @@ START_RELOC_NUMBERS (elf_sh_reloc_type)
 >    RELOC_NUMBER (R_SH_DIR8BP, 7)
 >    RELOC_NUMBER (R_SH_DIR8W, 8)
 >    RELOC_NUMBER (R_SH_DIR8L, 9)
 > -  FAKE_RELOC (R_SH_FIRST_INVALID_RELOC, 10)
 > +  RELOC_NUMBER (R_SH_GOT32, 10)
 > +  RELOC_NUMBER (R_SH_PLT32, 11)
 > +  RELOC_NUMBER (R_SH_COPY, 12)
 > +  RELOC_NUMBER (R_SH_GLOB_DAT, 13)
 > +  RELOC_NUMBER (R_SH_JMP_SLOT, 14)
 > +  RELOC_NUMBER (R_SH_RELATIVE, 15)
 > +  RELOC_NUMBER (R_SH_GOTOFF, 16)
 > +  RELOC_NUMBER (R_SH_GOTPC, 17)
 > +  FAKE_RELOC (R_SH_FIRST_INVALID_RELOC, 18)
 >    FAKE_RELOC (R_SH_LAST_INVALID_RELOC, 24)
 >    RELOC_NUMBER (R_SH_SWITCH16, 25)
 >    RELOC_NUMBER (R_SH_SWITCH32, 26)

Sorry for my late response, but could I ask you a question?

Is there any reason for the value 10--17 here?  In our implementation,
we use the assigned number (by Hitachi) 160-167 for this purpose.
I've heard that other vendor's tool already uses 10--17 for different
purpose.  So, GNU tool may break the compatibility here, which we should
avoid.

It's OK for us (Linux port for SH) to re-compile all the binaries now
as it's still young.  But I'm afraid of already distributed other
vendor's binaries other than Linux.
--