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: is main() provided by a library valid C ?

From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
To: "Peter S. Mazinger" <ps dot m at gmx dot net>
Cc: binutils at sourceware dot org, Joakim dot Tjernlund at lumentis dot se
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 09:35:34 -0400
Subject: Re: is main() provided by a library valid C ?
References: <20050512210401.GA9925@lucon.org> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0505130927350.16802-100000@lnx.bridge.intra>

On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 09:47:01AM +0200, Peter S. Mazinger wrote:
> The circumstances:
> The weak definition of main() is moved from libc.so to crt1.o written in 
> asm as '.protected main'.

Why?

You certainly can't declare main as a protected symbol if it lives in a
library.  I don't see why you want it to be a protected symbol, either.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC

Follow-Ups:
- Re: is main() provided by a library valid C ?
  - From: Peter S. Mazinger

References:
- Re: ld and R_386_GOTOFF relocs
  - From: H. J. Lu
- is main() provided by a library valid C ?
  - From: Peter S. Mazinger

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