avoid NULL pointer ambiguity in mn10300 sim

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Jun  3, 2004, Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn@redhat.com> wrote:

> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun  2, 2004, Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn@redhat.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Should that offset be aligned (i.e. 4 or 8)?
>> It could, but it would just increase the waste.  If any of the other
>> sections needs alignment, it shall require alignment itself.

> I don't think 3 more bytes is that much of a burden.

Indeed, but the first section is the interp name, that imposes no
alignment requirements, and certainly isn't required to end at an
aligned address, so making it 4 instead of 1 is guaranteed to be a
waste without any possible benefit.

But I don't care enough about these 3 bytes to fight to have them back
:-)

> I'll check in the change.

Thanks,

-- 
Alexandre Oliva             http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}