From owner-freebsd-current Thu Jul 27 03:07:54 1995 Return-Path: current-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.6) id DAA16935 for current-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jul 1995 03:07:54 -0700 Received: from FileServ1.MI.Uni-Koeln.DE (FileServ1.MI.Uni-Koeln.DE [134.95.212.1]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.6) with SMTP id DAA16929 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 1995 03:07:50 -0700 Received: by FileServ1.MI.Uni-Koeln.DE id AA12119 (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for current@freebsd.org); Thu, 27 Jul 1995 12:06:55 +0200 Message-Id: <199507271006.AA12119@FileServ1.MI.Uni-Koeln.DE> From: esser@zpr.uni-koeln.de (Stefan Esser) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 12:06:55 +0200 In-Reply-To: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) "Re: ls_length in struct linker_set" (Jul 26, 14:41) X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.6 alpha(2) 7/9/95) To: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) Subject: Re: ls_length in struct linker_set Cc: current@freebsd.org Sender: current-owner@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk I'll change the code to use a value of NULL as the end marker. (Though I've got to admit, that I don't understand, why that is better than using the length field. Is there something special with GNU ld, and the length field shouldn't be relied on ???) Regards, STefan On Jul 26, 14:41, Terry Lambert wrote: } Subject: Re: ls_length in struct linker_set } > > 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. -- Stefan Esser Internet: Zentrum fuer Paralleles Rechnen Tel: +49 221 4706021 Universitaet zu Koeln FAX: +49 221 4705160 Weyertal 80 50931 Koeln