This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com 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: [PATCH] Fix .tbss handling


On Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 02:02:01AM -0400, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 09:50:40AM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 06:26:50PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > --- ld/ldlang.c.jj	Thu Jul 18 11:38:46 2002
> > > +++ ld/ldlang.c	Thu Jul 18 23:42:51 2002
> > > @@ -3055,7 +3055,8 @@ lang_size_sections_1 (s, output_section_
> > >  	    if (bfd_is_abs_section (os->bfd_section))
> > >  	      ASSERT (after == os->bfd_section->vma);
> > >  	    else if ((os->bfd_section->flags & SEC_HAS_CONTENTS) == 0
> > > -		     && (os->bfd_section->flags & SEC_THREAD_LOCAL))
> > > +		     && (os->bfd_section->flags & SEC_THREAD_LOCAL)
> > > +		     && ! link_info.relocateable)
> > >  	      os->bfd_section->_raw_size = 0;
> > >  	    else
> > >  	      os->bfd_section->_raw_size =
> > 
> > Dumb question.  Why is it necessary to zero _raw_size here?  If you
> > managed to set correct sizes here, then you wouldn't need hacks
> > elsewhere, eg. assign_file_positions_for_segments, and the new one
> > in elf_fake_sections.
> 
> It simplifies the layout routines etc., because .tbss for layout
> routines really has zero size, but unlike NOBITS that zero size is
> for the p_vaddr/p_paddr too (in addition to p_offset).
> The only place where is the real .tbss size needed
> is the final section table and PT_TLS segment size computation.

The patch is OK then.

-- 
Alan Modra
IBM OzLabs - Linux Technology Centre


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