From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9919 invoked by alias); 4 Apr 2005 14:27:51 -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 9178 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2005 14:27:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wigwam.mikroweb.hu) (193.17.175.10) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 4 Apr 2005 14:27:28 -0000 Received: from [10.1.43.89] (helo=mail.bridge.intra) by wigwam.mikroweb.hu with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1DISXw-0007Mp-0t; Mon, 04 Apr 2005 16:27:26 +0200 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AB34390D; Mon, 4 Apr 2005 16:27:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail.bridge.intra ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (lnx.bridge.intra [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 27967-04; Mon, 4 Apr 2005 16:27:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail.bridge.intra (Postfix, from userid 200) id E02223A0A; Mon, 4 Apr 2005 16:27:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.bridge.intra (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA9CB390D; Mon, 4 Apr 2005 16:27:13 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 14:27:00 -0000 From: "Peter S. Mazinger" To: Richard Earnshaw Cc: binutils@sourceware.org Subject: Re: elf32-arm.c corrections In-Reply-To: <1112622331.20824.20.camel@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2005-04/txt/msg00082.txt.bz2 On Mon, 4 Apr 2005, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > On Sun, 2005-03-20 at 01:15, Peter S. Mazinger wrote: > > Hello! > > > > add_dynamic_entry: changes !info->shared to info->executable (PIE) > > corrects typo, and syncs up with other archs (some others could do the > > same). For !relocs the hole part would be omitted, probably some speed gain. > > > > Should the other patch (*3) for allocate_dynrelocs be applied (as done for > > ppc32)? > > > > Why is ELIMINATE_COPY_RELOCS not used for arm? > > > > Thanks, Peter > > > > Please cc to me, > > Sorry for the delay replying, I've been snowed under with other work of > late. > > I think this is probably OK, but it's hard to be sure because you > haven't followed all the procedures. When submitting a patch you need > to do all of the following (as a minimum): it was only sent to discuss it, because I can't be sure that it is ok, I am looking since about 1-2 month at differences between arm and other archs, because it had a false TEXTREL entry in all shared libs. This is solved in the mean time. My intention is to get arm in sync w/ other archs, to support PIE as well (currently not supported), see another patch from me. > 1) Explain what you are trying to do. Is this a bug that you've found? > If so, provide a testcase. Is it an optimization? If so, why is the > existing code non-optimal. Try to avoid diving in with too much detail. optimization (shorter exec due to moving it to if (relocs) and typo correction. > 2) Describe the patch (you've done that, though it could be a little > clearer). > 3) Provide a ChangeLog entry describing the mechanics of the patch > (functions that have been changed and how). Is it approved? I will. > 4) Provide a patch produced with 'diff -p' or 'diff -up' format (the -p > option is essential so that I can see which functions are being changed > from the patch). didn't know that -p is needed, sorry > 5) State which configurations you've tested the patch on. works natively on arm v4 (uclibc based) Thanks, Peter -- Peter S. Mazinger ID: 0xA5F059F2 Key fingerprint = 92A4 31E1 56BC 3D5A 2D08 BB6E C389 975E A5F0 59F2