From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from omta01ps.mx.bigpond.com (omta01ps.mx.bigpond.com [144.140.82.153]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DF3B67B63 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2006 23:56:00 +1000 (EST) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 23:25:30 +0930 From: Alan Modra To: Jonathan Bartlett Subject: Re: .tc entries question Message-ID: <20060809135530.GD7210@bubble.grove.modra.org> References: <20060725021558.GG6872@bubble.grove.modra.org> <20060725140634.GH6872@bubble.grove.modra.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 06:15:06AM -0700, Jonathan Bartlett wrote: > Another 64-bit Elf question, this one about the TOC. In many examples, > for defining toc entries, there is some syntax like this: > > name_to_refer_to_this: > .tc seemingly_unused_name[TC], data_here > > I haven't figured out what the purpose of the name immediately preceding > [TC] is. In fact, it seems that in most cases it can simply be left out. > Is this just a holdover from a previous binary format, or does > "seemingly_unused_name" actually get used in some fashion? It is just a syntax we inherited from PowerPC64 XCOFF. seemingly_unused_name and the bracketed class qualifier are completely ingored. -- Alan Modra IBM OzLabs - Linux Technology Centre