Thiemo Seufer ths@networkno.de
Wed Jun 7 20:10:00 GMT 2006

• Previous message (by thread): RFH/RFC: symbol index overflow in MIPS linker stubs...
• Next message (by thread): RFH/RFC: symbol index overflow in MIPS linker stubs...
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 08:27:59PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > I would favour a two instruction sequence, applications will continue to
> > grow. There might be some compatibility traps, but at a superficial
> > glance I haven't found an obvious blocker.
> 
> If we can change the stub sequence without ABI problems, why waste an
> instruction?  Support both.

Will the stub section support varying entry sizes? I'm not sure.


Thiemo

---

• Previous message (by thread): RFH/RFC: symbol index overflow in MIPS linker stubs...
• Next message (by thread): RFH/RFC: symbol index overflow in MIPS linker stubs...
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

More information about the Binutils mailing list