PATCH: Add R_386_SIZE32/R_X86_64_SIZE32/R_X86_64_SIZE64 support to bfd
H.J. Lu
hjl.tools@gmail.com
Wed Jan 16 23:57:00 GMT 2013
More information about the Binutils mailing list
Wed Jan 16 23:57:00 GMT 2013
- Previous message (by thread): PATCH: Add R_386_SIZE32/R_X86_64_SIZE32/R_X86_64_SIZE64 support to bfd
- Next message (by thread): PATCH: Add R_386_SIZE32/R_X86_64_SIZE32/R_X86_64_SIZE64 support to bfd
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 3:50 PM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote: > > H.J. I wonder about this syntax. > > Won't it conflict with symbol versioning? > > How could we refer in the assembler to a specific version of > a symbol, and that version happens to be "SIZE"? > > Maybe I'm concerned about a non-issue, but I thought I'd ask. The same applies to @PLT, @GOT, @GOTOFF, .... I don't think it is a real issue. -- H.J.
- Previous message (by thread): PATCH: Add R_386_SIZE32/R_X86_64_SIZE32/R_X86_64_SIZE64 support to bfd
- Next message (by thread): PATCH: Add R_386_SIZE32/R_X86_64_SIZE32/R_X86_64_SIZE64 support to bfd
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Binutils mailing list