On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 14:37:01 -0800
Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net> wrote:
> So you said you had a userland test harness?
Yes, which is fine for testing basic relocs, but misses some subtle issues.
[ Sorry for the delayed reply, I only got this mail via kernel.org: did you
get a bounce from rusty@rustcorp.com.au? ]
> Some problems I've seen browsing the code:
Thanks for this. It adds even more weight to your ET_DYN argument as well.
I'll need to play with that linker script some more (on PPC, binfmt_misc.o
is 13000 bytes, binfmt_misc.so becomes 156128 bytes 8)
There's still the issue of PPC and PPC64 which can only jump 24-bits away,
and so currently insert trampolines which have to be allocated with the
module, but that should be no uglier than currently. (They could use a
special allocator, too, but with only 16M, they have to ensure noone else
uses those addresses).
PPC64 also frobs the TOC ptr (r2) in the trampolines: I don't have a
ppc64 box in front of me, but I imagine -shared will do the right thing
there too.
Thanks!
Rusty.
-- there are those who do and those who hang on and you don't see too many doers quoting their contemporaries. -- Larry McVoy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 23 2002 - 22:00:16 EST