[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Setting up of GP in static, non-PIC version of glibc?

To: Ralf Baechle <>
Subject: Re: Setting up of GP in static, non-PIC version of glibc?
From: Johannes Stezenbach <>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 20:32:50 +0100
Cc: Hartvig Ekner <>,
In-reply-to: <>
Mail-followup-to: Johannes Stezenbach <>, Ralf Baechle <>, Hartvig Ekner <>,
References: <> <> <> <>
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.27i
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 07:39:28PM +0100, Ralf Baechle wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 07:31:41PM +0100, Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
> > BTW: Who is "we"? Do you mean global data optimization is broken
> > in gcc/binutils or just that no one at SGI is using it?
> It's an ECOFF specific optimization that just has been forward ported into
> the ELF world.  And what does this have to do with SGI anyway?

I was wondering who you speak for when you say "we don't
support foobar", and your email is

I was just trying to decode the meaning of what you said.
Like, did you mean "I don't care about it" or "The tools are
totally broken and you have to go along way to use it"?

The global data optimization would fit dietlibc's goal
of as-small-as-possible, statically linked binaries. But
from what you said I gather I would have to fix gcc and
binutils first.


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