[PATCH] review request [MC ELF] qq

[Jack Carter]

ELF symbol table field st_other support,
excluding visibility bits.

Attached are 2 patches: generic STO handling
and Mips specific STO setting with a test case.

The st_other field of the ELF symbol table is one
byte in size. The first 2 bytes are used for generic
visibility and are currently handled by llvm.

The other six bits are processor specific and need
to be set at the target level.

A couple of notes:

The Mips specific enumerations in ELF.h are not strictly
in value order. The mask value for a group of values is
placed before the flag values it will mask.

The new static methods for accessing and setting the "other"
flags in include/llvm/MC/MCELF.h match the style guide
and not the other methods in the file. I don't like the
inconsistency, but feel I should follow the prescribed
lowerUpper() convention.

STO_ value definitions are not specified in gnu land as
consistently as the STT_ and STB_ fields. Probably because
the latter were defined in a standards doc and the former
defined partially in code. I have stuck with the full byte
definition of the flags.

This has gone through internal review. Let me know if I
may check it in.

Contributer: Zoran Jovanovic



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20130213/bfb031fb/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: sto_generic.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 5317 bytes
Desc: sto_generic.patch
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20130213/bfb031fb/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: sto_micromips.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 7373 bytes
Desc: sto_micromips.patch
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20130213/bfb031fb/attachment-0001.bin>