From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <binutils-return-70192-listarch-binutils=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 22518 invoked by alias); 17 Feb 2011 17:59:10 -0000
Received: (qmail 22509 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Feb 2011 17:59:08 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0	tests=BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz (HELO sunsite.mff.cuni.cz) (195.113.15.26)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 17:59:02 +0000
Received: from sunsite.mff.cuni.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1])	by sunsite.mff.cuni.cz (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p1HHwtMs015098;	Thu, 17 Feb 2011 18:58:55 +0100
Received: (from jj@localhost)	by sunsite.mff.cuni.cz (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p1HHwtuR015097;	Thu, 17 Feb 2011 18:58:55 +0100
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 17:59:00 -0000
From: Jakub Jelinek <jj@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz>
To: John Reiser <jreiser@bitwagon.com>
Cc: binutils@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: x32 psABI draft version 0.2
Message-ID: <20110217175855.GJ13037@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz>
References: <AANLkTindyH6koj0dCn1nxU9Cu3XUtg3XfvTnt_EWD13Q@mail.gmail.com> <4D5C2DD2.10608@zytor.com> <4D5CEBDE02000078000325A2@vpn.id2.novell.com> <AANLkTinnRWed02Foef3Lh8JyKjMLs3n_z0KdaTAivc5S@mail.gmail.com> <4D5D4943.2010300@bitwagon.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4D5D4943.2010300@bitwagon.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <binutils.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:binutils-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/>
List-Post: <mailto:binutils@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:binutils-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-02/txt/msg00223.txt.bz2

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 08:13:55AM -0800, John Reiser wrote:
> On 02/17/2011 04:14 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:35 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@novell.com> wrote:
> 
> >> Furthermore, it seems questionable to continue to require rela
> >> relocations when for all normal ones (leaving aside the 8- and 16-
> >> bit ones) the addend can fit in the relocated field.
> > 
> > Rela is much nicer to work with.
> 
> How is RELA much nicer to work with than REL?

E.g. for prelinking, REL doesn't work at all for most relocations
(with the exception of those that are defined to ignore the addend,
or RELATIVE relocs).  Prelink therefore needs to convert REL back
to RELA in that case.

	Jakub