| To: | "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@linux-mips.org> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: CVS Update@linux-mips.org: linux |
| From: | Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org> |
| Date: | Fri, 22 Jul 2005 10:00:45 -0400 |
| Cc: | Thiemo Seufer <ths@networkno.de>, linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.LNX.4.61L.0507221417340.7324@blysk.ds.pg.gda.pl> |
| Original-recipient: | rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| References: | <20050721153359Z8225218-3678+3745@linux-mips.org> <20050722043057.GA3803@linux-mips.org> <20050722121030.GD1692@hattusa.textio> <20050722130655.GD3803@linux-mips.org> <Pine.LNX.4.61L.0507221417340.7324@blysk.ds.pg.gda.pl> |
| Sender: | linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.4.2.1i |
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 02:24:48PM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > > > - the in-kernel use seems to be limited to the ELF binary object > > > loader and probably third party modules loaders > > > I found moving to a consistent definition to be more useful than > > > keeping the old inconsistent one. > > > > I think you're confusing binutils's internal definitions with the use > > everywhere else. > > In particular when in doubt please refer to ELF standards which state > "EF_" is the prefix for processor-specific flags in "e_flags" in the ELF > file header; similarly with "EM_" for "e_machine" and "ET_" for "e_type" > -- you should see the pattern. There is no mention of the "E_" prefix in > the standards. Which makes me wonder why glibc has the E_ definitions. Other operating systems that I looked up don't. Ralf |
| Previous by Date: | Re: structure initialization, Thiemo Seufer |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: CVS Update@linux-mips.org: linux, Thiemo Seufer |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: CVS Update@linux-mips.org: linux, Maciej W. Rozycki |
| Next by Thread: | Re: CVS Update@linux-mips.org: linux, Thiemo Seufer |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |