Any thoughts on this?
Or maybe it's wrong list for this question?
On 07.08.2012 12:09, Dmitri Shubin wrote:
On 06.08.2012 21:13, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 08/06/2012 08:23 AM, Dmitri Shubin wrote:
char *cfa = (char *) _Unwind_GetCFA(ctx);
printf("cfa = %p\nra = %p\n", cfa, *(void *
> > [...] I really didn't expect that RedHat and Google both mess up
> > GCC with their modifications, so I'll report it to them instead
>
> That's not a fair characterization of the features' costs/benefits.
We just are trying to mess up (?) binutils, aren't we? gcc just
receives the benefit b
> > How is the idea of adopting it as the standard format of GNU Hurd?
>
> I have no opinion on this. Note though that these complex relocations
> are encoded within a standard ELF file (merely using separate
> relocation-type and symbol-type codes). There is no need for an
> OS/kernel to suppor
> It may interest you to know that, for an older Cygnus project (mep),
> we implemented a facility called computed/complex relocations, as an
> ELF extension. This is a way of encoding general symbol/arithmetic
> expressions to be evaluated at link time and substituted into the
> binary output.
> ELF is designed to permit fast program loading at runtime, and to
> permit fast linking. Changing symbol and relocation values to take
> general expressions works against that goal.
> I'm sure it is possible to improve on ELF in various ways. However,
> ELF is pretty good. I very strongly re
I'd just sent mail to r...@gnu.org and he replied.
> I know nothing abnout ELF format, and I have not worked on GCC since
> 1991. Thus, I simply am not in a position to judge the merits of your
> suggestion. How about writing to g...@gnu.org, which is the discussion
> list for GCC?
My original
