Long, long ago, Eric Botcazou, a life form in far off space, emitted: >neither you nor us can change it now
Thanks for your further thoughts -- and even bigger story! The answer to that is pending; I hope we can edit ld to not require -4 in those rel reloc locations in input files. If so, the market will decide; is a corrected ld favored or not. >but you are 20 years late That's the marvel. Why was this not corrected 20 years ago? IMHO, it is never too late to upgrade quality -- and my proposed correction would have a practical effect: (1) you could announce to compiler makers they don't need the -4 gibberish in the object file outputs anymore (and they could optionally remove that from their compilers) and (2) a huge resource of countless object files in the outside world of computing would be linkable on Linux. And you wouldn't even have to edit your ABI document. With a fixed ld, compiler makers could put the -4's as before or 0 instead or even random numbers in those locations. Are you saying, "Linux cannot be improved?" Seems so. IMHO, not good public relations re promoting the OS. Only problem may be: while you are free to nurture a "We are defeated" attitude, there is, oops, nothing to prevent others from doing the obvious improvements -- especially when it comes to the OS's flag-ship linker. Take care, Jim _______________________________________________ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
