This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
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
> 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?
Australia Development Lab, IBM