From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25457 invoked by alias); 16 Aug 2003 05:19:27 -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 25450 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2003 05:19:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (63.201.54.26) by sources.redhat.com with QMTP; 16 Aug 2003 05:19:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 18460 invoked by uid 10); 16 Aug 2003 05:19:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 13623 invoked by uid 500); 16 Aug 2003 05:19:21 -0000 Mail-Followup-To: binutils@sources.redhat.com, dj@redhat.com To: DJ Delorie Cc: binutils@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch] new sh relocs References: <200308152051.h7FKp5b14273@greed.delorie.com> From: Ian Lance Taylor Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 05:19:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <200308152051.h7FKp5b14273@greed.delorie.com> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-08/txt/msg00278.txt.bz2 DJ Delorie writes: > Renesas has asked us to implement more of the "official" relocations. > Unfortunately, we had some GNU reloc extensions in those numbers, so I > had to move some of them to the reserved slots. Note that nearly all > reloc values from 1 to 127 are used by SH, so we should expect more of > this type of thing in the future. They also define bit 7 of the type > to mean something, so in reality, they've used up all the relocations. But, but, isn't moving relocs going to break existing object files? Ian