[PATCH] minor ELF definitions addition

[PATCH] minor ELF definitions addition

[Jan Beulich]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 643 bytes --]

(Note: Patch also attached because the inline version is certain to get
line wrapped.)

A trivial addition to the EFL definitions.

Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com>

diff -Npru 2.6.13/include/linux/elf.h 2.6.13-elf/include/linux/elf.h
--- 2.6.13/include/linux/elf.h	2005-08-29 01:41:01.000000000 +0200
+++ 2.6.13-elf/include/linux/elf.h	2005-03-16 12:24:42.000000000
+0100
@@ -150,6 +150,8 @@ typedef __s64	Elf64_Sxword;
 #define STT_FUNC    2
 #define STT_SECTION 3
 #define STT_FILE    4
+#define STT_COMMON  5
+#define STT_TLS     6
 
 #define ELF_ST_BIND(x)		((x) >> 4)
 #define ELF_ST_TYPE(x)		(((unsigned int) x) & 0xf)


[-- Attachment #2: linux-2.6.13-elf.patch --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 642 bytes --]

(Note: Patch also attached because the inline version is certain to get
line wrapped.)

A trivial addition to the EFL definitions.

Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com>

diff -Npru 2.6.13/include/linux/elf.h 2.6.13-elf/include/linux/elf.h
--- 2.6.13/include/linux/elf.h	2005-08-29 01:41:01.000000000 +0200
+++ 2.6.13-elf/include/linux/elf.h	2005-03-16 12:24:42.000000000 +0100
@@ -150,6 +150,8 @@ typedef __s64	Elf64_Sxword;
 #define STT_FUNC    2
 #define STT_SECTION 3
 #define STT_FILE    4
+#define STT_COMMON  5
+#define STT_TLS     6
 
 #define ELF_ST_BIND(x)		((x) >> 4)
 #define ELF_ST_TYPE(x)		(((unsigned int) x) & 0xf)

Re: [PATCH] minor ELF definitions addition

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:30:03PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> (Note: Patch also attached because the inline version is certain to get
> line wrapped.)
> 
> A trivial addition to the EFL definitions.

Why?  They're obviously not needed in kernelspace..

> 
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com>
> 
> diff -Npru 2.6.13/include/linux/elf.h 2.6.13-elf/include/linux/elf.h
> --- 2.6.13/include/linux/elf.h	2005-08-29 01:41:01.000000000 +0200
> +++ 2.6.13-elf/include/linux/elf.h	2005-03-16 12:24:42.000000000
> +0100
> @@ -150,6 +150,8 @@ typedef __s64	Elf64_Sxword;
>  #define STT_FUNC    2
>  #define STT_SECTION 3
>  #define STT_FILE    4
> +#define STT_COMMON  5
> +#define STT_TLS     6
>  
>  #define ELF_ST_BIND(x)		((x) >> 4)
>  #define ELF_ST_TYPE(x)		(((unsigned int) x) & 0xf)
> 


---end quoted text---

Re: [PATCH] minor ELF definitions addition

[Jan Beulich]

>>> Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> 08.09.05 16:32:16 >>>
>On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:30:03PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> (Note: Patch also attached because the inline version is certain to
get
>> line wrapped.)
>> 
>> A trivial addition to the EFL definitions.
>
>Why?  They're obviously not needed in kernelspace..

I have dependent code (on STT_COMMON), and am in the process of
breaking this up. Since the definition doesn't hurt anyone (and I need
it), I can't see why it can't be there; I agree that STT_TLS will rarely
be needed in kernel code, but I still decided to also add this for
completeness.

>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com>
>> 
>> diff -Npru 2.6.13/include/linux/elf.h
2.6.13-elf/include/linux/elf.h
>> --- 2.6.13/include/linux/elf.h	2005-08-29 01:41:01.000000000
+0200
>> +++ 2.6.13-elf/include/linux/elf.h	2005-03-16 12:24:42.000000000
>> +0100
>> @@ -150,6 +150,8 @@ typedef __s64	Elf64_Sxword;
>>  #define STT_FUNC    2
>>  #define STT_SECTION 3
>>  #define STT_FILE    4
>> +#define STT_COMMON  5
>> +#define STT_TLS     6
>>  
>>  #define ELF_ST_BIND(x)		((x) >> 4)
>>  #define ELF_ST_TYPE(x)		(((unsigned int) x) & 0xf)
>> 

Re: [PATCH] minor ELF definitions addition

[Andi Kleen]

Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> writes:

> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:30:03PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > (Note: Patch also attached because the inline version is certain to get
> > line wrapped.)
> > 
> > A trivial addition to the EFL definitions.
> 
> Why?  They're obviously not needed in kernelspace..

linux/elf.h has lots of stuff not needed in kernel space,
but it seems useful to make it a faithful full description
of ELF.

BTW we actually considered using TLS on x86-64 for the PDA.
The only reason it hasn't been done yet is that the necessary
binutils are not wide spread enough yet.

-Andi