From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6077 invoked by alias); 2 Nov 2004 15:21:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 5954 invoked from network); 2 Nov 2004 15:21:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com) (193.131.176.58) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 2 Nov 2004 15:21:53 -0000 Received: from pc960.cambridge.arm.com (pc960.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.205.4]) by cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id iA2FLBxm019721; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 15:21:11 GMT Received: from pc960.cambridge.arm.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pc960.cambridge.arm.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id iA2FLngK007446; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 15:21:49 GMT Received: (from rearnsha@localhost) by pc960.cambridge.arm.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id iA2FLnoK007444; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 15:21:49 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: pc960.cambridge.arm.com: rearnsha set sender to rearnsha@gcc.gnu.org using -f Subject: Re: PATCH: Reduce size of SymbianOS DLLs From: Richard Earnshaw To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Ian Lance Taylor , Mark Mitchell , binutils@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: <20041102151747.GB19832@nevyn.them.org> References: <200411012110.iA1LAk42008211@sirius.codesourcery.com> <1099391341.11478.87.camel@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> <1099407847.6939.18.camel@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> <20041102151747.GB19832@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: GNU Message-Id: <1099408909.6939.23.camel@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 15:21:00 -0000 X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00020.txt.bz2 On Tue, 2004-11-02 at 15:17, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 03:04:07PM +0000, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > > Grr. I hate the BFD. In particular I hate the fact that there is much > > code in header files, especially elf32-arm.h! If only I had the time to > > restructure it all... > > > > I guess if you are happy with all this, then I am happy :-) > > Well now that you mention it... elf32-arm.h is a header so that it can > be included by elfarm-nabi.c and elfarm-oabi.c. I haven't seen > indication of the "old, old" ABI being used in a long time. If I > remember right, you were talking about removing it. > > If there's no reason not to do that, we could move all the code from > elf32-arm.h and elfarm-nabi.c to elf32-arm.c (or just move it to > elfarm-nabi.c to avoid disrupting history). That's real simple. I would have thought all the 'interesting' history was in elf32-arm.h, which we'd loose anyway. So moving it all to elf32-arm.c would probably be the 'correct' move for consistency with other architectures. Are we at the correct point in the release cycle for making this sort of change? R.