From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1IdOkS-000307-Uj
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 07:20:08 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1IdOkR-0002yG-H5
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 07:20:08 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IdOkR-0002yB-CG
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 07:20:07 -0400
Received: from mail.bawue.net ([193.7.176.63])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <ths@networkno.de>) id 1IdOkR-0006dm-3u
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 07:20:07 -0400
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 12:20:06 +0100
From: Thiemo Seufer <ths@networkno.de>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] RFC: cleanups in ELF loader
Message-ID: <20071004112006.GQ16772@networkno.de>
References: <1191116355.29900.86.camel@rapid>
	<20070930133839.GD13317@networkno.de>
	<1191164963.29900.141.camel@rapid>
	<1191206541.29900.166.camel@rapid>
	<20071001033522.GG13317@networkno.de>
	<1191468401.31950.54.camel@rapid>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1191468401.31950.54.camel@rapid>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: "J. Mayer" <l_indien@magic.fr>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

J. Mayer wrote:
[snip]
> The thing I see is different is that the n32 ABI redefines elf_greg_t
> and elf_caddr_t as 32 bits. Maybe I missed something but those types
> seem not to be used by the ELF loader (or maybe I should look in a more
> recent kernel ;-) ).
> Then, I have seen no apparent issue with the patch and I'm quite sure
> that, even if it's not correct for some specific ABI, it would bring no
> regression.

Agreed.


Thiemo