Re: [PATCH] Implement x86 SIZE32/SIZE64 relocations

["H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>]

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Carlos O'Donell
<carlos@systemhalted.org> wrote:
> On 01/16/2013 03:42 PM, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Roland McGrath <roland@hack.frob.com>
>> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:33:21 -0800 (PST)
>>
>>> If it's so well settled, then you can commit the changes to binutils and
>>> report here that they are in binutils already when you propose your patch.
>>
>> I strongly disagree with this ordering requirement.
>>
>> The whole world is not binutils, there are many tool sets that might
>> want to emit these ABI standard defined relocations.  The most
>> important dependency is the dynamic linker, and it should support
>> all cpu ABI defined relocations regardless of whatever binutils can
>> emit it or not.
>
> Agreed.
>
> The ABI standard is the arbiter of the relocations.
>
> Failing that, yes, binutils is the arbiter of the relocations.
>
> Once an ABI defines the relocations I have no problem
> including them in glibc.
>
> Even if the binutils work exposes a problem with the relocations
> there isn't anything that uses them yet so you can just change
> their meaning in the dynamic linker anyway?
>
> I see no clear reason to wait for binutils to implement a relocation.
>

I checked x86 size relocation support into binutils and
pushed it to master branch in glibc.

Thanks.

-- 
H.J.