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: Section symbols not getting created. Bug? Is attached patch correct fix?

On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 10:26:22PM +0200, John Marino wrote:
> Alan Modra wrote:
> >On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 08:16:44AM +0200, John Marino wrote:
> >>At the very least, shouldn't there be a switch that could be used to
> >>override the current behavior and go back to the original behavior?
> >
> >I'd rather not add yet another command line switch.  I suppose you
> >could add an internal flag that selects the old behaviour, and set the
> >flag just for your target in a .em file.
> >
> >>What was the rationale for making this breaking change in the first place?
> >
> >Avoiding useless clutter in the symbol table.
> >
> Well, I think this is a case where the baby was thrown out with the
> bath water.  I would have thought that backwards capability would
> have been provided with this change.

I don't recall anyone else complaining, and the change happened four
years ago.

> Regarding the internal flag / .em suggestion, isn't that more or
> less equivalent to the patch on ldlang.c I provided earlier?
> Basically it would revert the behavior to work as binutils 2.17?

Yes, but based on a flag, only set for your particular target.

I do think that asking for __start_* and __stop_* to always be defined
for orphan sections is a rather odd requirement.  What exactly do you
need them for?  Surely not the dynamic loader?

Alan Modra
Australia Development Lab, IBM

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