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]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: bfd/elf/mn10300 "dangerous error"

From: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
To: ian at airs dot com
Cc: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 15:42:18 -0400
Subject: Re: bfd/elf/mn10300 "dangerous error"
References: <200507181935.j6IJZRsS007971@greed.delorie.com> <m3wtnnzyxl.fsf@gossamer.airs.com>

> The notion of what dangerous means is target dependent.  Some
> dangerous relocs should only be warnings.  Some should be fatal
> errors.  I don't know which is the case for elf-m10300.c.

Yeah, I was hoping someone would know the history.  The relocs in
question are non-pic relocs in a shared library, seemed kinda fatal to
me.

Is there any historical precedent for having a linker (or emulation)
option to control how fatal those cases should be?

Follow-Ups:
- Re: bfd/elf/mn10300 "dangerous error"
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor

References:
- bfd/elf/mn10300 "dangerous error"
  - From: DJ Delorie
- Re: bfd/elf/mn10300 "dangerous error"
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor

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