This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [rfa:] Save/restore bug for section info in elf_object_p.
- To: alan at linuxcare dot com dot au
- Subject: Re: [rfa:] Save/restore bug for section info in elf_object_p.
- From: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hans-peter dot nilsson at axis dot com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:57:01 +0200
- CC: hans-peter dot nilsson at axis dot com, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
> Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 13:07:12 +1100 (EST)
> From: Alan Modra <email@example.com>
> Does this fix go far enough? ie. Are there other things in the bfd that
> should be restored on a failure? Would it be safer to make a copy of the
> bfd, and restore the whole thing on a mis-match?
I did consider saving the whole big bfd, but rejected that
thought early enough not to write it down. For once, it would
give a false sense of safety. The fields that are written today
are written with the same information because of a constant ELF
header interpretation; everything else is in tdata. Future
fields would generally have to be known about and cleared out
anyway, as with sections. Saving two fields, as with tdata,
seemed the better approach.
> If you have considered
> these issues, I have no objection to you committing your patch.
So committed. Thanks for reviewing.