On Friday 07 March 2008 Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> "Philipp Marek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Shouldn't this be done in the linker instead?
> >
> > Well, can the linker change the instruction sequences? Ie. put a JMP
> > instead of other code?
>
> Sure. The linker can do whatever it likes.
"Philipp Marek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Shouldn't this be done in the linker instead?
> Well, can the linker change the instruction sequences? Ie. put a JMP
> instead of other code?
Sure. The linker can do whatever it likes. The usual problem is that
by the time the linker sees the cod
Hello Dave!
> One achitectural problem here is that GCC doesn't emit bytes. It emits
> ASCII text, in the form of assembly instructions, and it's
> not always easy to predict how they'll look by the time they've been
> through the assembler and then had relocs applied by the
> linker. (Indeed, to
Philipp Marek wrote:
> I'd like to (manually) define some byte blocks, eg. as functions with
> an identifier. Then, if GCC would emit exactly these bytes, it
> puts a JMP identifier there instead.
One achitectural problem here is that GCC doesn't emit bytes. It emits ASCII
text, in the form
