Re: Which patch added R_ARM_GOTOFF32 support?

[Daniel Jacobowitz <dan at codesourcery dot com>]

On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 11:20:00AM -0600, Shaun Jackman wrote:
> Hello Richard, Dan,
> 
> I'm trying to track down which part of the GCC source tree makes the
> decision to emit either a R_ARM_GOT32 or a R_ARM_GOTOFF32 relocation.
> A new feature in GCC 4.1 emits a R_ARM_GOTOFF32 relocation for a
> reference to a static function. I thought there was a good chance one
> of you two might have added this feature. If you're familiar with the
> the patch, would you please point me to the relevant ChangeLog entry?
> I'm hoping to add an exception for execute in place (XIP) code (-fPIC
> -msingle-pic-base) to use R_ARM_GOT32 instead of R_ARM_GOTOFF32.

GOTOFF support has been there for a long while.  Only use of it for
static functions is recent.  It should be easy to find.  But this is
not at all the only problem.  GCC's PIC model assumes a fixed
displacement between segments.

We've implemented something similar to what you need for VxWorks.  A
couple of other places had to be changed.  I don't remember if the
VxWorks gcc port was submitted, or just the binutils bits.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery