This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Advice needed on when to synthesize <sym>.high_bound in ld
- To: greg at mcgary dot org
- Subject: Re: Advice needed on when to synthesize <sym>.high_bound in ld
- From: Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>
- Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 13:02:43 -0700
- CC: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
: > Symbols do have a size. In fact it is the size of common symbols that
: > is problematic, as it can change of a bigger definition of the symbol
: > comes along. (Would your patch handle this BTW ?)
: I assumed that the common symbols had already been merged by the time
: I checked for high bound, but I'm not certain that's justified. I'll
Actually I checked afterwards, and I think that your patch will be OK
in this case. It is working after the common symbols have been
resolved, so the sizes should be accurate.
: > Since we are talking ELF here, in theory all you need to do is to get
: > hold of the elf_link_hash_entry structure for the symbol and examine
: > its 'size' field. You might look, for example at the function
: > bfd_elf_link_hash_newfunc() in bfd/elf.c
: OK. Since I already have people trying to use this with COFF, I'd
: like to get that working as well.
Umm, I seem to remember that COFF limits its section names to 8
characters, which would make adding a md5 post-fix or a .gnu.linkonce
prefix a bit problematic. Of course I could be wrong about this.