From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1990 invoked by alias); 27 Jun 2004 23:45:05 -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 1978 invoked from network); 27 Jun 2004 23:45:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO modra.org) (144.136.182.188) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 27 Jun 2004 23:45:04 -0000 Received: by bubble.modra.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id B29EB57D1D; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 09:15:02 +0930 (CST) Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 23:45:00 -0000 From: Alan Modra To: Carlos O'Donell Cc: binutils@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFC on removing R_PARISC_DIR21L in DSO for hppa? Message-ID: <20040627234502.GP3469@bubble.modra.org> Mail-Followup-To: Carlos O'Donell , binutils@sources.redhat.com References: <20040627153936.GF18912@baldric.uwo.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040627153936.GF18912@baldric.uwo.ca> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2004-06/txt/msg00499.txt.bz2 On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 11:39:36AM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > Would it be valid to warn again when DIR21L relocations are about > to make it into the final link? Yes. Since glibc's ld.so doesn't handle them, you could merge the DIR17F thru DIR21L cases with the DPREL ones immediately above. ie. turn the warning into a hard error. I think when I wrote that code, I was distinguishing relocs that could be handled by ld.so from those that can't (DPREL are only valid in the main app). It's a rather pedantic distinction when ld.so doesn't provide support though! I'm not sure why the warning was turned off for DIR17F .. DIR21L. It was probably an over-enthusiastic change when disabling other warnings. -- Alan Modra IBM OzLabs - Linux Technology Centre