Re: arm-wince-pe support resurrection

[Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>]

Hi Dmitry,

> It is explicitly stated in MS PE COFF specification (section 5.2: ARM
> Processors) that relocation 0 is ignored. 5th one is not
> mentioned, so in my opinion it should be treated as reserved, and should
> not be used.

Thanks for the section reference.  I agree with you now that 5 is a
bad value for the ARM_26D reloc, so I will commit this part of your
patch.

> I suspect patched binutils will not be backward compatible with object
> files produced by the older toolchains. (At least the condition from the
> above patch should test for both 5 and 0 values for compatibility.) But
> why not to recompile the files if it is really necessary to use new
> binutils?
>
> In fact I have doubts there are active users of arm-wince-pe target
> currently at all. (I have not seen the ones for several months in such
> mailing lists like gcc*, binutils*, crossgcc, wince-devel). So, I don't
> think the change will hurt someone.

This is probably true - but just in case I have amended your patch to
pe-dll.c to accept either 0 or 5 as the value for the ARM-26D reloc.
With this change made, I have applied the rest of this patch.

Cheers
        Nick