From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1IdmTm-0007k8-Hi
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 05 Oct 2007 08:40:30 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1IdmTk-0007jO-Q5
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 05 Oct 2007 08:40:30 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IdmTk-0007jJ-M3
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 05 Oct 2007 08:40:28 -0400
Received: from honiara.magic.fr ([195.154.193.36])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <l_indien@magic.fr>) id 1IdmTk-0001Jw-2c
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 05 Oct 2007 08:40:28 -0400
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] RFC: cleanups in ELF loader
From: "J. Mayer" <l_indien@magic.fr>
In-Reply-To: <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> <20071004112006.GQ16772@networkno.de>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 14:38:20 +0200
Message-Id: <1191587900.31950.63.camel@rapid>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Thiemo Seufer <ths@networkno.de>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 12:20 +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> 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.

I'd really like to have the though of ARM developpers about it....
But if no one seem to report potential issues, I'll commit it.

-- 
J. Mayer <l_indien@magic.fr>
Never organized