From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21312 invoked by alias); 9 Feb 2005 16:33:09 -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 21292 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2005 16:33:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (205.217.158.180) by sourceware.org with QMTP; 9 Feb 2005 16:33:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 12992 invoked by uid 10); 9 Feb 2005 16:33:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 6363 invoked by uid 500); 9 Feb 2005 16:32:57 -0000 Mail-Followup-To: binutils@sources.redhat.com, julian@codesourcery.com To: Julian Brown Cc: binutils@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Indicate dependency on personality routines for ARM EHABI References: <420A38B6.3010609@codesourcery.com> From: Ian Lance Taylor Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 17:09:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <420A38B6.3010609@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/msg00164.txt.bz2 Julian Brown writes: > /* These relocs are only used within the ARM assembler. They are not > (at present) written to any object files. */ > + BFD_RELOC_ARM_NONE, Why not just use BFD_RELOC_NONE here? In general you should only create a target specific BFD_RELOC enum constant for relocations which only arise on a particular target. For example, note that there is no BFD_ARM_RELOC_32. 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? Is the use of a zero reloc mandated by the ARM ABI? Ian