This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [patch] bfd aix xty_ld symbols
- To: Tom Rix <trix at redhat dot com>
- Subject: Re: [patch] bfd aix xty_ld symbols
- From: Nick Clifton <nickc at cambridge dot redhat dot com>
- Date: 21 Aug 2001 18:20:14 +0100
- Cc: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- References: <3B81D579.7085E47C@redhat.com>
Hi Tom,
> This patch fixes a bug with xty_ld symbols that do not immediately
> follow their xty_sd symbol.
>
> This bug may show up if you are using the .set pseudo op
>
> void foo() {}
> void bar() {}
>
> .set .foo1, .foo
This appears to be a strange test file. Is it a mix of C and
assembler or is it something else ? Also if it is a test case then
why not include it in the patch so that the bug will be continue to be
fixed in future releases ?
> RCS file: /cvs/cvsfiles/devo/bfd/xcofflink.c,v
> *** 1706,1711 ****
You appear to be quoting a patch based against the Red Hat internal
sources and not the sourceware sources. This is a bad idea. In fact
you appear to have an out of date set of sources entirely since the
line you are patching is at 1604 in the sources not 1706.
>
> + csect = section;
> value = sym.n_value - csect->vma;
> }
I would also appreciate a little more explanation of what this patch
is doing and how it is fixing the problem. For example in the code
you are patching there is a comment saying:
case XTY_LD:
/* This is a label definition. The x_scnlen field is the
symbol index of the csect. I believe that this must
always follow the appropriate XTY_SD symbol, so I will
insist on it. */
So are you changing the behaviour of the linker, and if so, then why
not change the comment as well ?
> 2001-08-21 Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>
>
> * xcofflink.c (xcoff_link_add_symbols): Fix XTY_LD symbol that
> does not follow a XTY_SD.
Not approved (yet).
Cheers
Nick