From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5108 invoked by alias); 15 Nov 2004 12:40:25 -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 4926 invoked from network); 15 Nov 2004 12:40:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO gizmo02bw.bigpond.com) (144.140.70.12) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 15 Nov 2004 12:40:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 9178 invoked from network); 15 Nov 2004 12:40:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bwmam12.bigpond.com) (144.135.24.103) by gizmo02bw.bigpond.com with SMTP; 15 Nov 2004 12:40:07 -0000 Received: from cpe-144-136-221-26.sa.bigpond.net.au ([144.136.221.26]) by bwmam12.bigpond.com(MAM REL_3_4_2a 189/7039622) with SMTP id 7039622; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 22:40:07 +1000 Received: by bubble.modra.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 432AD13C8E1; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 23:10:07 +1030 Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 12:40:00 -0000 From: Alan Modra To: Richard Sandiford Cc: binutils@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: Extensions to the .eh_frame linker code Message-ID: <20041115124007.GA17180@bubble.modra.org> Mail-Followup-To: Richard Sandiford , binutils@sources.redhat.com References: <87654akkwn.fsf@redhat.com> <20041115020718.GH32175@bubble.modra.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00223.txt.bz2 On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 09:06:51AM +0000, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Well, if we're adding a 'z' augmentation, both CIEs and FDEs can grow, > so the fields aren't fully redundant for FDEs. [snip] Perhaps I should have explained myself better. I'm a little uncomfortable with the way this struct is evolving. We have "size" which is the size of the FDE or CIE, "offset" and "new_offset" which index the old and new section contents, plus assorted flags and other data. Now you want to add some new size and offset related fields that to me look redundant. I think you should be able to manage with your new add_* flags and set new_offset in _bfd_elf_discard_section_eh_frame to reflect any needed growth. -- Alan Modra IBM OzLabs - Linux Technology Centre