This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
RE: [PATCH] Make obj_sec_set_private_data into a format_ops member
- From: "Dave Korn" <dave dot korn at artimi dot com>
- To: "'Alan Modra'" <amodra at bigpond dot net dot au>
- Cc: <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 14:34:11 +0100
- Subject: RE: [PATCH] Make obj_sec_set_private_data into a format_ops member
On 02 May 2006 12:38, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 11:55:44AM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>> On 02 May 2006 11:37, Alan Modra wrote:
>>> Especially if I run into your NULL deref.
>> I suspect you may well do so on coff targets;
> Indeed, I did. Fixing by creating new section syms. Thanks for the
> detailed explanation.
Rightyo, since you're really that close to checking this in I may as well
wait for it. Patch withdrawn.
>> and that leads on to larger
>> issues of regularising the way in which synthetic symbols (i.e. not backed
>> by a real target-dependent symbol structure with all the relevant internal
>> data) can be created, doesn't it?
> Yes. These special sections have always been a pain, more so in the
> past when they were const.
>> BTW, this issue aside, how about making the other macros I mentioned into
>> format ops?
> I think those make sense.
Would one big patch that adds them all at once be ok, or would you rather
separate patches for each one? From the point of view of doing thorough
testing (meaning 16 or 20 or even more full builds and testruns taking many
hours and many gigs of diskspace) it would be an awful lot less effort if I
could test them all in one go together!
BTW I'm currently testing cygwin native, and i386-elf-linux-gnu, arm-elf and
ppc-eabi as crosstargets. I think maybe I should add an aout target and
perhaps an ecoff target too; do you have any suggestions for which would be
good choices (in terms of what targets are currently actively maintained and
have lots of users)?
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....