Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>