[PATCH] ldso - adding HAVE_RELATIVE_RELOCS define - updated
Carmelo Amoroso
carmelo73 at gmail.com
Tue Jan 6 21:13:36 UTC 2009
olsajiri at gmail.com wrote:
> Hi,
> I moved the HAVE_RELATIVE_RELOCS to the dl-sysdep.h.
> Also found there were warnings of non used variables due to the
> ifdef'ed block. The rest is the same.
>
>
> As the former comment suggested, I added the HAVE_RELATIVE_RELOCS and
> and reduced the linker code size.
>
> [Nr] Name Type Addr Off Size ES Flg Lk Inf Al
> -[ 6] .text PROGBITS 00000a2c 000a2c 00323e 00 AX 0 0 4
> +[ 6] .text PROGBITS 00000a2c 000a2c 003133 00 AX 0 0 4
>
> I suppose most of the linkers support -Bsymbolic,
> but I could verify only i386 and arm.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri at gmail.com>
Hi Jiri,
sorry for not having commented this in the previou reply,
but I'd prefer to use a "positive logic" and define a macro
for those archs that needs to perform bootstrap relocation, instead
of specifying that the arch has only relative relocations at bootstrap.
So, instead of using if !defined (HAVE_RELATIVE_RELOCS), I'd wrote
#ifdef ARCH_NEEDS_BOOTSTRAP_RELOCS or something similar.
So, just define the macro for those archs that require this.
Do you agree ?
> ---
[SNIP]
> }
> +#endif // !defined(HAVE_RELATIVE_RELOCS)
and do not use C++ style comment, please.
Thanks,
Carmelo
More information about the uClibc
mailing list