From owner-freebsd-current Thu Jul 27 10:41:06 1995 Return-Path: current-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.6) id KAA00403 for current-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jul 1995 10:41:06 -0700 Received: from cs.weber.edu (cs.weber.edu [137.190.16.16]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.6) with SMTP id KAA00396 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 1995 10:41:04 -0700 Received: by cs.weber.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1.1) id AA02033; Thu, 27 Jul 95 11:33:19 MDT From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) Message-Id: <9507271733.AA02033@cs.weber.edu> Subject: Re: ls_length in struct linker_set To: esser@zpr.uni-koeln.de (Stefan Esser) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 95 11:33:19 MDT Cc: current@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <199507271006.AA12119@FileServ1.MI.Uni-Koeln.DE> from "Stefan Esser" at Jul 27, 95 12:06:55 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4dev PL52] 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 ???) Because you might want to statically declare all sets rather than having a linker make it for you. Consider that most of the items that get "linker sets" have manifest constant kernel options to get them in in the first place. Then consider that you might have a non-self-hosted porting environment that doesn't support linker sets. 8-). Terry Lambert terry@cs.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.