From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29560 invoked by alias); 2 Nov 2004 15:33:23 -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 29547 invoked from network); 2 Nov 2004 15:33:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com) (193.131.176.58) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 2 Nov 2004 15:33:21 -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 iA2FW9xm020819; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 15:32:09 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 iA2FWlgK007456; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 15:32:47 GMT Received: (from rearnsha@localhost) by pc960.cambridge.arm.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id iA2FWlsM007454; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 15:32:47 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: Nick Clifton Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , Ian Lance Taylor , Mark Mitchell , binutils@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: <4187A86D.2080907@redhat.com> 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> <1099408909.6939.23.camel@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> <4187A86D.2080907@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: GNU Message-Id: <1099409567.6939.26.camel@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 15:33:00 -0000 X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00022.txt.bz2 On Tue, 2004-11-02 at 15:31, Nick Clifton wrote: > Hi Guys, > > >>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. > > I would definitely support the idea of obsoleting the "old, old ABI" > support. As far as I know there is nobody using it today, but I think > that we ought to do the proper thing and add the arm-*-oabi target to > the obsolete configurations section at the start of bfd/config.bfd. > Then, after the 2.16 release we can remove the old code and merge > elf32-arm.h and elfarm-nabi.c into elf32-arm.c. If we leave the existing elf32-arm.h around for backwards compatibility (with elfarm-oabi.c), then we could create a merged elf32-arm.c for current development work without the need to waste a lot of time testing that the new changes don't break the old code. R.