From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28331 invoked by alias); 10 Feb 2005 10:36:41 -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 28301 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2005 10:36:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO gizmo07ps.bigpond.com) (144.140.71.42) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 10 Feb 2005 10:36:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 19404 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2005 10:36:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO psmam12.bigpond.com) (144.135.25.103) by gizmo07ps.bigpond.com with SMTP; 10 Feb 2005 10:36:32 -0000 Received: from cpe-144-136-221-26.sa.bigpond.net.au ([144.136.221.26]) by psmam12.bigpond.com(MAM REL_3_4_2a 234/2253075) with SMTP id 2253075; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 20:36:32 +1000 Received: by bubble.modra.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id A078212C6D2; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:06:32 +1030 Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:51:00 -0000 From: Alan Modra To: "C Jaiprakash, Noida" Cc: binutils@sources.redhat.com, cjaiprakash@noida.hcltech.com Subject: Re: RFC:elf32-m68k.c for coldfire v4e Message-ID: <20050210103632.GK22497@bubble.modra.org> Mail-Followup-To: "C Jaiprakash, Noida" , binutils@sources.redhat.com, cjaiprakash@noida.hcltech.com References: <267988DEACEC5A4D86D5FCD780313FBB044A8245@exch-03.noida.hcltech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <267988DEACEC5A4D86D5FCD780313FBB044A8245@exch-03.noida.hcltech.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2005-02/txt/msg00196.txt.bz2 On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 03:26:09PM +0530, C Jaiprakash, Noida wrote: > Though these changes should be valid for m68k as well but the size of PLT is > increased a bit. What I want to know is will this be acceptable? No. ld.so modifies the PLT, so the layout cannot change. > If not then > How can I decide which PLT is to be used among m68k, cpu32 or cfv4e? I may > create a new target may be coldfire-linux but there will be a code > duplication of elf32-m68k.c. Yes, you should use a new target, but there should be no need for code duplication. The way you do this is by including elf32-target.h again in elf32-m68k.c, with some changed defines. A good example to look at is the Symbian support in elf32-arm.c, which happens to use a different PLT layout to other ARM targets. -- Alan Modra IBM OzLabs - Linux Technology Centre