On 10/27/2011 03:43 AM, Suzuki Poulose wrote: > On 10/27/11 00:46, Scott Wood wrote: >> On 10/26/2011 02:12 PM, Suzuki Poulose wrote: >>> I have renamed the new type of relocation to RELOCATABLE_PPC32_PIE. The >>> patches >>> were posted yesterday. Please let me know your thoughts. >> >> I think it would make more sense to rename the existing behavior (maybe >> something like DYNAMIC_MEMSTART -- if there's even enough overhead to >> make it worth being configurable at all), since it's not fully >> relocatable and since 64-bit already uses RELOCATABLE to mean PIE. > > I think leaving the current behaviour as it is, and adding the PIE as an > additional configuration option would be safe and wouldn't disturb the > existing dependencies.
That's how things grow to be an unmaintainable mess. AFAICT, what you're doing is the same as what 64-bit does for RELOCATABLE. If they're doing the same thing, they should be called the same thing. Whereas 64-bit and e500 are currently doing different things for RELOCATABLE -- so they should be called different things. > ( CRASH_DUMP etc. depend on RELOCATABLE for archs which work fine ). A simple grep should be able to sort out such dependencies on the name. -Scott _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
