This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Why were those codes removed from bfd_elf_match_symbols_in_sections?
- From: Alan Modra <amodra at bigpond dot net dot au>
- To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 10:14:53 +1030
- Subject: Re: Why were those codes removed from bfd_elf_match_symbols_in_sections?
- References: <6dc9ffc80802221308o8e1652fl7a4779c33fb68f8@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 01:08:38PM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2007-10/msg00407.html
>
> removed section name comparison in
> bfd_elf_match_symbols_in_sections. When it is called from
> match_group_member, it has to always check symbol tables
> to compare 2 sections in section group, whose section
> names are started with .gnu.linkonce. I'd like to put the
> .gnu.linkonce. section name check back to avoid unnecessary
> symbol table lookup.
Do we have .gnu.linkonce.* sections in section groups?? If so, why
should they be treated differently from other sections in groups?
--
Alan Modra
Australia Development Lab, IBM