This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [David Mosberger <davidm@hpl.hp.com>] problem with unwind info for .init/.fini sections
- From: David Mosberger <davidm at napali dot hpl dot hp dot com>
- To: "H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- Cc: davidm at hpl dot hp dot com, Alan Modra <amodra at bigpond dot net dot au>, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Ulrich Drepper <drepper at redhat dot com>, GNU libc hacker <libc-hacker at sources dot redhat dot com>, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 11:13:13 -0800
- Subject: Re: [David Mosberger <davidm@hpl.hp.com>] problem with unwind info for .init/.fini sections
- References: <15486.55079.333535.999190@napali.hpl.hp.com><20020228173311.A26728@lucon.org><15486.56491.696020.742674@napali.hpl.hp.com><20020228175426.A30756@redhat.com><15487.8879.719511.86715@napali.hpl.hp.com><20020228225757.A30933@redhat.com><15487.51034.573513.390031@napali.hpl.hp.com><20020302003645.A20582@lucon.org><20020302101931.GM1059@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au><15489.2452.737686.119846@napali.hpl.hp.com><20020302105939.A29014@lucon.org>
- Reply-to: davidm at hpl dot hp dot com
>>>>> On Sat, 2 Mar 2002 10:59:39 -0800, "H . J . Lu" <hjl@lucon.org> said:
HJ> The problem is you are searching all input files. It doesn't
HJ> matter they are used or not.
Doesn't your patch do the same? It's safe to create the entries
needlessly, though it would obviously be better if that didn't happen.
If you know a way to do that, great.
HJ> Here is a new patch.
Looks to me like this could end up creating the same DT*ARRAY entries
multiple times, no?
HJ> Also, those new sections should be in the data segment.
Good point.
HJ> BTW, should we allow both .init/.fini and the array sections.
Yes.
HJ> If both exist, how should ld.so treat them?
See the Sys V ABI. IIRC, .init gets executed before .init_array and
.fini_array gets executed before .fini.
--david