public inbox for binutils@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Out of bits in flagwords, what's the preferred way of extending it?
@ 2002-01-07  9:34 Jakub Jelinek
  2002-01-07 14:05 ` Alan Modra
  2002-01-07 14:06 ` Michael Meissner
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jakub Jelinek @ 2002-01-07  9:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: binutils

Hi!

I'd like to use a new bit in sec->flags, unfortunately there are none left
(well, 2 are apparently COFF only, but is there some way how to figure out
section creator type)?
Should flagword simply be extended to 64 bits, or use 2 flags bitfields, or
something else?

	Jakub

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* Re: Out of bits in flagwords, what's the preferred way of extending it?
  2002-01-07  9:34 Out of bits in flagwords, what's the preferred way of extending it? Jakub Jelinek
@ 2002-01-07 14:05 ` Alan Modra
  2002-01-07 14:06 ` Michael Meissner
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Alan Modra @ 2002-01-07 14:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jakub Jelinek; +Cc: binutils

On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 06:37:48PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> 
> I'd like to use a new bit in sec->flags, unfortunately there are none left
> (well, 2 are apparently COFF only, but is there some way how to figure out
> section creator type)?

owner->xvec

> Should flagword simply be extended to 64 bits, or use 2 flags bitfields, or
> something else?

Since there are already a number of bitfields, I'd be inclined to use
bitfields.

-- 
Alan Modra
IBM OzLabs - Linux Technology Centre

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* Re: Out of bits in flagwords, what's the preferred way of extending it?
  2002-01-07  9:34 Out of bits in flagwords, what's the preferred way of extending it? Jakub Jelinek
  2002-01-07 14:05 ` Alan Modra
@ 2002-01-07 14:06 ` Michael Meissner
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Michael Meissner @ 2002-01-07 14:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jakub Jelinek; +Cc: binutils

On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 06:37:48PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> I'd like to use a new bit in sec->flags, unfortunately there are none left
> (well, 2 are apparently COFF only, but is there some way how to figure out
> section creator type)?
> Should flagword simply be extended to 64 bits, or use 2 flags bitfields, or
> something else?

If it is still a concern that bfd support older (32-bit non-GCC and non-C99)
compilers, I suspect going to 64 bits will cause these systems to stop working.

My personal preference is to switch to bitfields, since it is more friendly to
the debugger (both gdb and the person debugging the code).  I would suggest
adding clumps of bitfields with enough reserved bits to pad us to 32-bit
boundaries, and would be available to future use.

-- 
Michael Meissner, Red Hat, Inc.  (GCC group)
PMB 198, 174 Littleton Road #3, Westford, Massachusetts 01886, USA
Work:	  meissner@redhat.com		phone: +1 978-486-9304
Non-work: meissner@spectacle-pond.org	fax:   +1 978-692-4482

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2002-01-07 22:05 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2002-01-07  9:34 Out of bits in flagwords, what's the preferred way of extending it? Jakub Jelinek
2002-01-07 14:05 ` Alan Modra
2002-01-07 14:06 ` Michael Meissner

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).