This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Release 2.21.1 ?
On Mar 16, 2011, at 1:44 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 5:16 AM, Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 09:50:35AM +0100, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mar 16, 2011, at 7:44 AM, Sedat Dilek wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> while handling several breakages in linux-next kernel, it showed PR
>>>> gas/12519 (see [1]) is somehow incomplete as it gives no pointer to
>>>> the symbol name in case of an error.
>>>> "Mention symbol name in non-constant .size expression." (see [2]) as a
>>>> follow-up patch definitely helps to enlighten developer's where to dig
>>>> into occuring problems.
>>>> "Revert the last change on gas/elf/bad-size.err." (see [3]) is a fixup to [2].
>>>>
>>>> It would be nice to see [2] and [3] backported to 2.21-branch.
>>>
>>> Why not.
>>>
>>> Does it make sense to generate a warning instead of an error in 2.21.1 for backward bug-compatibility ?
>>> Alan, what's your opinion ?
>>
>> Well, it's plain wrong to accept bad expressions and have gas try to
>> guess what typos mean, so I think it should be an error. The size
>> info matters to some people. Ask gdb developers, or anyone writing
>> code analysis and optimization tools.
>>
>> I also think it highly likely that new binutils and/or gcc will break
>> kernel bisection in other areas. For that reason I'm inclined to
>> discount the kernel list histrionics over the .size fix. Kernel
>> kiddies are just going to have to learn to deal with toolchain
>> evolution.
>>
>
> Can I apply my size error patch?
Sure.