From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <binutils-return-37802-listarch-binutils=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 20455 invoked by alias); 9 Feb 2005 17:28:20 -0000
Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:binutils-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/>
List-Post: <mailto:binutils@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:binutils-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 20040 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2005 17:28:06 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com) (193.131.176.58)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 9 Feb 2005 17:28:06 -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 j19HMw4m022636;
	Wed, 9 Feb 2005 17:22:58 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 j19HODrg004540;
	Wed, 9 Feb 2005 17:24:14 GMT
Received: (from rearnsha@localhost)
	by pc960.cambridge.arm.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id j19HOD52004538;
	Wed, 9 Feb 2005 17:24:13 GMT
X-Authentication-Warning: pc960.cambridge.arm.com: rearnsha set sender to rearnsha@gcc.gnu.org using -f
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Indicate dependency on personality routines for ARM
	EHABI
From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@gcc.gnu.org>
To: Julian Brown <julian@codesourcery.com>
Cc: Ian Lance Taylor <ian@airs.com>, binutils@sources.redhat.com
In-Reply-To: <420A43C8.5090008@codesourcery.com>
References: <420A38B6.3010609@codesourcery.com>
	 <m3hdkllmme.fsf@gossamer.airs.com>  <420A43C8.5090008@codesourcery.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: GNU
Message-Id: <1107969853.4376.16.camel@pc960.cambridge.arm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 20:35:00 -0000
X-SW-Source: 2005-02/txt/msg00174.txt.bz2

On Wed, 2005-02-09 at 17:09, Julian Brown wrote:
> Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > Julian Brown <julian@codesourcery.com> writes:
> > 
> > 
> >>  /* These relocs are only used within the ARM assembler.  They are not
> >>  (at present) written to any object files.  */
> >>+   BFD_RELOC_ARM_NONE,
> > 
> > 
> > Why not just use BFD_RELOC_NONE here?
> > 
> > In general you should only create a target specific BFD_RELOC enum
> > constant for relocations which only arise on a particular target.  For
> > example, note that there is no BFD_ARM_RELOC_32.
> 
> Perhaps it should be, and I tried it with that initially. The reason it 
> isn't is because elsewhere in tc-arm.c:md_apply_fix3 BFD_RELOC_NONE 
> seems to be used as an error indicator:-
> 
>    case BFD_RELOC_NONE:
>    default:
>      as_bad_where (fixP->fx_file, fixP->fx_line,
>                    _("bad relocation fixup type (%d)"), fixP->fx_r_type);
> 
> ...which was being triggered when that relocation type was requested 
> with fix_new(), I think. Is there another way around that?

Hmm, that's an abuse of RELOC_NONE.  It would probably be best to change
them to BFD_RELOC_UNUSED, then you could use BFD_RELOC_NONE for it's
proper purpose.

R.