linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: CVS Update@linux-mips.org: linux

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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>