Daisuke HATAYAMA d.hatayama@jp.fujitsu.com
Fri Jun 4 01:21:00 GMT 2010

• Previous message (by thread): ld/emulparams/sparc*.sh NOP missing in all but one file
• Next message (by thread): Question on ELF extension: what's the rationale of choosing each marking constant?
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

Hi Alan,

I have a question about rationale for ELF extension. Is there a
special meaning for each marking constant? ``each marking constant'' I
mean here is:
  - PN_XNUM(0xffff) for e_phnum,
  - 0 for e_shnum, and
  - SHN_XINDEX(0xffff) for e_shstrndx.

In my sense, PN_XNUM was chosen for e_phnum because it is nearest to
the real number within the range of what e_phnum can represent, and 0
for e_shnum because e_shoff shows section header table exists, and
choosing 0 prevents ordinary tools not supporting the ELF extension
from recognizing this. Also, I have no idea why SHN_XINDEX was chosen.

Is the consideration right? If not, could you tell me anything about
this?

I've questioned this to you because I saw your patch to this mailing
list, http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2001-12/msg00151.html, so I
guessed you know something to understand about this.

Thanks,
HATAYAMA Daisuke

---

• Previous message (by thread): ld/emulparams/sparc*.sh NOP missing in all but one file
• Next message (by thread): Question on ELF extension: what's the rationale of choosing each marking constant?
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

More information about the Binutils mailing list