This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH RFA] partial-stab.h patch amendment
- To: Kevin Buettner <kevinb at cygnus dot com>,binutils at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- Subject: Re: [PATCH RFA] partial-stab.h patch amendment
- From: "H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 10:02:23 -0700
- Cc: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>,gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- References: <1010905224331.ZM6026@ocotillo.lan> <email@example.com> <1010906205537.ZM8109@ocotillo.lan> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <1010906232048.ZM8395@ocotillo.lan> <20010906230028.A9702@lucon.org> <email@example.com> <1010907165329.ZM10390@ocotillo.lan>
On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 09:53:29AM -0700, Kevin Buettner wrote:
> > Is there a way to remove a stabs entry in this case?
> In my opinion, it'd be better for some other part of the toolchain
> (i.e. not GDB) to remove the appropriate stabs entries when a symbol
I meent to ask if there was a way to remove a stabs entry by the
> is converted from being weak defined to (weak) undefined. (Is there
> any difference between ``undefined'' and ``weak undefined''?)
I don't think so. We are trying to find out if it is a linker bug.
But I don't have access to Solaris to verify it myself. I'd like to
know what the linker should do for a weak definition when
1. There is a strong definition in another relocatable file before it.
2. There is a strong definition in another relocatable file after it.
3. There is a strong definition in a DSO before it.
4. There is a strong definition in a DSO after it.
> > I tried your patch on gdb 5.1. It works for me. Can we have it in
> > gdb 5.1?
> Good question. I think it should go in, but I'm not the keeper of the
> Andrew, what do you say?
Please. I really appreciate it.