Date: Wed, 26 Jul 95 14:41:36 MDT From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) To: wollman@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ls_length in struct linker_set Message-ID: <9507262041.AA23200@cs.weber.edu> In-Reply-To: <9507261936.AA08840@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu> from "Garrett Wollman" at Jul 26, 95 03:36:05 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > While on that topic, didn't anyone notice that the PCI code is the > > only code that actually uses the linker set length field? Everything > > else looks for the NULL record at the end of the set. Does anyone > > want to clean up the PCI code to do the same, and get rid of the > > length field altogether? > > The layout of the structure is defined by GNU ld, so I would not want > to touch it since other GNUware may depend on it for correct > operation. See gnu/usr.bin/ld/ld.h, as I recall, near where it > defines N_SETT etc. I mean the PCI code change to not depend on it. 8-). The difference between static and non-static allocation of a data structure which is a list of non-NULL (caddr_t)'s terminated by a NULL (caddr_t). Non-static being the GNU ld stuff. I'd like to move away from depending on non-portable magic as much as possible. I didn't mean we should change the linker (far be it for us to have any say on how that's coded). I think our current use is abuse of a facility that was put there to support FORTRAN common blocks, actually. Terry Lambert terry@cs.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9507262041.AA23200>