From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4035 invoked by alias); 9 Feb 2005 16:46:48 -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 4010 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2005 16:46:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.9) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 9 Feb 2005 16:46:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 26574 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2005 16:46:44 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO wren.home) (paul@127.0.0.1) by mail.codesourcery.com with SMTP; 9 Feb 2005 16:46:44 -0000 From: Paul Brook Organization: CodeSourcery To: binutils@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Indicate dependency on personality routines for ARM EHABI Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 17:24:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.2 Cc: Ian Lance Taylor , Julian Brown References: <420A38B6.3010609@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200502091646.42378.paul@codesourcery.com> X-SW-Source: 2005-02/txt/msg00166.txt.bz2 On Wednesday 09 February 2005 16:32, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > More generally, I think it's kind of dubious to use a zero reloc to > mean anything at all. And why do you need a relocation entry? Why is > it not sufficient to enter the symbol in the symbol table as an > undefined symbol? Isn't a linker allowed to discard symbols if nothing uses them? The symbols referenced by the relocation are only ever called via a weak reference from the unwinding library. The use of the routine is implicitly encoded in the unwinding tables. > Is the use of a zero reloc mandated by the ARM ABI? Yes. The ABI defines and requires the use of a zero reloc (R_ARM_NONE). Paul