On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 07:15:30PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 10:40:32PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> > Otherwise I would strictly reduce the compatibility hack to the above
> > mentioned five architectures. The difference is 132-256 Bytes in .data
> > and a co
On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 10:40:32PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> Otherwise I would strictly reduce the compatibility hack to the above
> mentioned five architectures. The difference is 132-256 Bytes in .data
> and a couple of relocations.
The attached patch implements this. Testing from non-x
On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 10:40:32PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> The list of platforms where ELF was enabled by default can be found in
> https://anonhg.netbsd.org/src/file/897109941a9a/share/mk/bsd.own.mk#l96
> Note that this also includes sparc64. This makes no sense as the dynamic
> linker
Hello all,
there is a compatiblity hack in ld.elf_so for early ELF binaries that I
would like to restructure and restrict to those architectures that
actually need it. Short version is that crt0.o would contain dlopen(3)
and friends and implement them by calling a pointer stored in the handle
passe