doctor electron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >You have not described any benefit beyond abstract appeals to what you
> >think object files should look like. That doesn't count. Give us a
> >measurable benefit and we'll consider it.
>
> I did: the vast amount of .obj files containing useful
> p
Long, long ago, Ian Lance Taylor, a life form in far off space,
emitted:
>We would discard the ABI in a second if the benefit exceeds the cost.
We agree; I'm happy.
>What benefit would we gain by changing the definition of R_386_PC32?
As stated, I don't know; the case was discussed as an exampl
doctor electron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2. As one who finds much in Linux to be very praiseworthy, I
> worry a bit about what seems to be such allegiance to a
> 20-year-old ABI doc which may be inconsistent with making
> quality improvements in the future. [No hardware maker would do
> such
Long, long ago, Ian Lance Taylor, a life form in far off space,
emitted:
>If you ignore the contents of the .o file, then how do you propose to
>handle the assembler code
>call foo + 16
>?
ADDENDUM:
Thanks again for this implied explanation, where apparently rel
reloc info is split in two par
