All those old patches.

[Geoff Keating <geoffk at cygnus dot com>]

> Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 10:10:10 +0200
> From: Momchil Velikov <velco@fadata.bg>

> These ones went unnoticed for about two months now (unless everyone
> considers
> them completely bogus and not worth talking about):

There was a temporary hiatus as the binutils maintainer changed over...

> http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/binutils/2000-04/msg00002.html
>   This patch removes the bfd errors if the output section of the target
>   of R_PPC_SDAREL16 and R_PPC_EMB_SDA2REL relocations is not
>   one of .sdata, .sbss, .sdata2 or .sbss2. 

The problem with deleting these warnings is that they have repeatedly
shown that they find bugs in the compiler or user's use of .sdata.

Sigh.  This is OK to commit.

> http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/binutils/2000-04/msg00003.html
>   This patch fixes a linker fatal signal. 

I don't like this patch.  Why initialize the table there?  There
should be no need to initialize the table in multiple places all
through elf32-ppc.c.  Instead, find a place before the table could
ever be used, initialise it there, and delete the other
initialisations.

> http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/binutils/2000-04/msg00006.html
>   This patch fixes another fatal signal. 

Why is the comment

-      /* Both of these sections are (technically) created by the user
-        putting data in them, so they shouldn't be marked
-        SEC_LINKER_CREATED.

wrong?

> http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/binutils/2000-04/msg00005.html
>   This patch adjusts the values of _SDA_BASE_ and _SDA_BASE_
>   before doing final link. 

I think this is OK.  Would you mind waiting a week or two in case
someone who understands the issues better can see something wrong?

-- 
- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@cygnus.com>