This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the binutils project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: [PATCH RFA] partial-stab.h patch amendment


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
linker.

> 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
> branch.
> 
> Andrew, what do you say?

Please. I really appreciate it.

Thanks.


H.J.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]