From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:08:52 +0100 (BST) Received: from ditditdahdahdah-dahdahdahditdit.dl5rb.org.uk ([217.169.26.28]:9640 "EHLO ditditdahdahdah-dahdahdahditdit.dl5rb.org.uk") by ftp.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S28576155AbYGPLIu (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:08:50 +0100 Received: from denk.linux-mips.net (denk.linux-mips.net [127.0.0.1]) by ditditdahdahdah-dahdahdahditdit.dl5rb.org.uk (8.14.2/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m6GB8mAK006058; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:08:48 +0100 Received: (from ralf@localhost) by denk.linux-mips.net (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) id m6GB8mtg006056; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:08:48 +0100 Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:08:48 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle To: Manuel Lauss Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: 2.6.26-gitX: insane number of section headers Message-ID: <20080716110848.GB8206@linux-mips.org> References: <20080716075246.GA3184@roarinelk.homelinux.net> <20080716081532.GB3184@roarinelk.homelinux.net> <20080716105927.GA8206@linux-mips.org> <20080716110357.GA5093@roarinelk.homelinux.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080716110357.GA5093@roarinelk.homelinux.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 19853 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: ralf@linux-mips.org Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 01:03:57PM +0200, Manuel Lauss wrote: > > I consider that an experimental commit. It's meant to solve the problems > > we're having on a few very large compilation units with the limited length > > of branches. But if the cure turns out to be worse than the illness I'm > > ready to pull it again. > > If it fixes bugs for people, then by all means leave it in. I was just > curious because my self-written bootloader complained about it. I wonder why your bootloader cares about sections. Normally a bootloader only ever should think about segments and the number of segments the sections are getting mapped to should be unchanged by my patch. > Thanks for the explanation. Immer doch :-) Ralf