From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15254 invoked by alias); 9 Feb 2005 16:57:46 -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 15180 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2005 16:57:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (205.217.158.180) by sourceware.org with QMTP; 9 Feb 2005 16:57:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 21128 invoked by uid 10); 9 Feb 2005 16:57:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 6757 invoked by uid 500); 9 Feb 2005 16:57:31 -0000 Mail-Followup-To: binutils@sources.redhat.com, julian@codesourcery.com, paul@codesourcery.com To: Paul Brook Cc: binutils@sources.redhat.com, Julian Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH] Indicate dependency on personality routines for ARM EHABI References: <420A38B6.3010609@codesourcery.com> <200502091646.42378.paul@codesourcery.com> From: Ian Lance Taylor Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 17:32:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <200502091646.42378.paul@codesourcery.com> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2005-02/txt/msg00168.txt.bz2 Paul Brook writes: > 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? An undefined symbol in the symbol table will normally be enough to bring in an object from a static library. > > 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). Then, this approach is fine in any case. But it should still use BFD_RELOC_NONE, I think. Ian