From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27152 invoked by alias); 29 Oct 2004 20:13:52 -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 27134 invoked from network); 29 Oct 2004 20:13:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 29 Oct 2004 20:13:49 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1CNd80-0003Nt-50; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 16:13:40 -0400 Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 20:13:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: David Poole Cc: binutils@sources.redhat.com, nickc@redhat.com, Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com Subject: Re: DT_TEXTREL/.dynamic issue with the binutils 2.15 linker on ARM and Linux Message-ID: <20041029201339.GA10171@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: David Poole , binutils@sources.redhat.com, nickc@redhat.com, Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com References: <20040528145608.GA556@nevyn.them.org> <20040529060633.GH3368@bubble.modra.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00477.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 10:59:08AM -0600, David Poole wrote: > On May 29, 2004, at 12:06 AM, Alan Modra wrote: > > >On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 10:56:09AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > >>I don't know why DT_TEXTREL isn't there for this case. It should be. > > > >Perhaps because elf32-arm.h doesn't have something like > >readonly_dynrelocs as implemented in other backends. > > Looking at elf32-i386.c and elf32-s390.c, I copied the > readonly_dynrelocs() and the call in > elf_(i386|s390)_size_dynamic_sections. > The patch from the message I'm quoting looks right to me: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2004-06/msg00010.html However, to apply it, two things need to happen: - An ARM maintainer needs to review it. - Someone needs to decide whether it requires a copyright assignment (my instinct is no, but I don't make these decisions). BTW, you said you still needed the patch with 2.15. I didn't try 2.15, but you definitely don't need it for HEAD; you'll get a PLT entry for the branch. However, if I change the test to use .word instead of bl, then it's obvious that your patch is needed. -- Daniel Jacobowitz