This is the mail archive of the binutils@sourceware.org mailing list for the binutils project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Question on ELF extension: what's the rationale of choosing each marking constant?


Hi Alan,

I have a question about rationale for ELF extension. Is there a
special meaning for each marking constant? ``each marking constant'' I
mean here is:
  - PN_XNUM(0xffff) for e_phnum,
  - 0 for e_shnum, and
  - SHN_XINDEX(0xffff) for e_shstrndx.

In my sense, PN_XNUM was chosen for e_phnum because it is nearest to
the real number within the range of what e_phnum can represent, and 0
for e_shnum because e_shoff shows section header table exists, and
choosing 0 prevents ordinary tools not supporting the ELF extension
from recognizing this. Also, I have no idea why SHN_XINDEX was chosen.

Is the consideration right? If not, could you tell me anything about
this?

I've questioned this to you because I saw your patch to this mailing
list, http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2001-12/msg00151.html, so I
guessed you know something to understand about this.

Thanks,
HATAYAMA Daisuke


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]