[PATCH 0/2] ARC Moving to @pcl relocations

[Andrew Burgess]

* Alexey Brodkin <Alexey.Brodkin at synopsys.com> [2016-07-29 08:49:22 +0000]:

> Hi Andrew, all,
> 
> On Thu, 2016-07-28 at 15:40 -0700, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> > On 07/28/2016 03:04 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Indeed your 2/2 seems to be the most "past-proof" code change. So I
> > > > > 
> > > > > would think it
> > > > > is indeed better and is something I should have done in the first
> > > > > place.
> > > > > 
> > > > > @Alexey, @Vlad what say you ?
> > > uClibc traditionally supports the current stable release of binutils, which would make it patch #1 I think.
> > > 
> > 
> > But 2/2 works for both and makes actual binutils version moot. FWIW, ARC tools
> > don't as of last release didn't use the upstream/stable binutils, but we are
> > pretty close to that now though.
> 
> Personally I'd prefer to not add more conditional defines in uClibc but
> make it a little-bit simpler.
> 
> I.e. either Vlad's patch or #1 from this series IMHO looks better.
> It's been quite some time since we updated our tools with PCL support
> and I'm not really sure if there's anybody interested in using ages old
> tools with today's uClibc. We don't test such combinations and there could
> be issues already in such combos.
> 
> BTW I noticed that Vlad's patch removes/reverts that thing as well:
> http://cgit.uclibc-ng.org/cgi/cgit/uclibc-ng.git/commit/ldso/ldso/arc/dl-sysdep.h?id=181d410ad00cddd1d6c9f4835e129136b74
> c5187
> 
> While Andrew just replaces ".&" construction with "@pcl".
> I'm wondering which is the correct approach here?

I left the second block in as the two blocks use different symbols,
the native threads block uses _DYNAMIC, while the non-native uses
_dl_start.

I wasn't sure if this was significant, so left the the split in
place.  If more knowledgeable folk believe these can be combined then
that's fine with me (so long as we combine on @pcl).

Thanks,
Andrew