Re: Never emit R_ARM_PC24 relocations when linking

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>]

On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 11:42:29PM +0000, Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-01-07 at 21:58, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > Right now we have a lot of baggage carried around for the difference between
> > R_ARM_PLT32 relocations and R_ARM_PC24.  In particular, we emit R_ARM_PC24
> > relocations for shared libraries when we receive R_ARM_PC24 input
> > relocations.  This seems like a misfeature; every branch instruction should
> > either be resolved locally, or go through a PLT stub.
> 
> This looks good to me.  So, with this patch, PLT32 and PC24 relocs in
> linker input should be treated as entirely synonymous, right?  The next
> obvious stage would be to stop gas from producing PLT32, and then that
> reloc type can fade gently into obscurity.

Yes.  The only difference I see in their handling now is a case I
missed in relocate_section, and some PC24 code that doesn't handle
PLT32 for interworking.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer