This is the mail archive of the 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: .comm symbol, 0

>>> Ian Lance Taylor <> 10.11.05 18:39:41 >>>
>"Jan Beulich" <> writes:
>> Is it correct that for ELF, as I would see at least as a reasonable
>> option, this produces a 1-byte common symbol, but for COFF (maybe
>> others) this produces an undefined extern? Shouldn't this be an
>> I'm asking because apparently only ELF sets the section for common
>> symbols to bfd_com_section, others rely on the value of the symbol
to be
>> non-zero. If I want to finally resolve the symbol redefinition
issues I
>> need to also be able to detect common ones, and S_IS_COMMON (due to
>> fact just mentioned) doesn't reliably recognize them, nor are they
>> recognizable through S_IS_DEFINED.
>Shouldn't a zero-sized common symbol simply be an error?  What does

That is my point. The issue really is if, in order to find out whether
a symbol is common, one can, short of S_IS_COMMON not always being
usable, rely on this being in the undefined section (!S_IS_DEFINED) and
having a non-zero value (S_GET_VALUE or similar), just like write.c does
to detect them.

Whether treating a zero-sized common as extern undefined or forcing it
to have size 1 would the subject of a different patch then.


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