From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11912 invoked by alias); 25 May 2010 04:33:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 11904 invoked by uid 22791); 25 May 2010 04:33:19 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (74.125.121.35) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 25 May 2010 04:33:16 +0000 Received: from kpbe11.cbf.corp.google.com (kpbe11.cbf.corp.google.com [172.25.105.75]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o4P4XCFL009964 for ; Mon, 24 May 2010 21:33:13 -0700 Received: from gyh20 (gyh20.prod.google.com [10.243.50.212]) by kpbe11.cbf.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o4P4XAbZ012202 for ; Mon, 24 May 2010 21:33:11 -0700 Received: by gyh20 with SMTP id 20so2412087gyh.13 for ; Mon, 24 May 2010 21:33:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.151.28.10 with SMTP id f10mr6829439ybj.171.1274761989357; Mon, 24 May 2010 21:33:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from coign.google.com (adsl-71-133-8-30.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [71.133.8.30]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v2sm584933ybh.4.2010.05.24.21.33.06 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 24 May 2010 21:33:06 -0700 (PDT) To: =?utf-8?B?RG91ZyBLd2FuICjpl5zmjK/lvrcp?= Cc: binutils Subject: Re: [PATCH][GOLD] Handle target specific relocatable relocation. References: From: Ian Lance Taylor Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 04:33:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Doug Kwan's message of "Tue\, 25 May 2010 11\:30\:06 +0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-System-Of-Record: true X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-05/txt/msg00307.txt.bz2 "Doug Kwan (=E9=97=9C=E6=8C=AF=E5=BE=B7)" writes: > For reasons I do not understand, the hooks in Sized_target do not > follow the normal convention in gold for virtual functions involving a > public interface foo() and a protected implementation do_foo(). I haven't looked at your patch yet, but the reason for this is that the Sized_target class is, by design, entirely abstract. All the methods are virtual and they are all either pure or crash. There was no need to separate the interface presented to others from the interface supplied by the child class: Sized_target only has a child class interface. Ian