From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <binutils-return-47089-listarch-binutils=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 31541 invoked by alias); 7 Aug 2006 09:41:49 -0000
Received: (qmail 31532 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Aug 2006 09:41:48 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 07 Aug 2006 09:41:46 +0000
Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) 	by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k779fhgS010849; 	Mon, 7 Aug 2006 05:41:43 -0400
Received: from pobox.surrey.redhat.com (pobox.surrey.redhat.com [172.16.10.17]) 	by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k779fgs8030678; 	Mon, 7 Aug 2006 05:41:43 -0400
Received: from [10.32.68.8] (vpn-68-8.surrey.redhat.com [10.32.68.8]) 	by pobox.surrey.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k779feJr017703; 	Mon, 7 Aug 2006 10:41:40 +0100
Message-ID: <44D70AD2.9040309@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 09:41:00 -0000
From: Nick Clifton <nickc@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (X11/20060516)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com>
CC: binutils@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] handling of forward references in expressions
References: <44CF35E9.76E4.0078.0@novell.com>
In-Reply-To: <44CF35E9.76E4.0078.0@novell.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
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: 2006-08/txt/msg00065.txt.bz2

Hi Jan,

> I was about to submit
> the following patch, when I found that a few targets can't deal with
> expressions in expr_section. My question hence is - can someone see
> another solution to the original problem, or do I need to go through all
> affected targets and find where they make those incorrect assumptions?

I think that you (or rather we) do need to go through all the affected 
targets and fix them.  Sorry. :-(

Cheers
   Nick