This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc 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] |
On 03 Mar 2015 19:54, Petar Jovanovic wrote: > For x86-32, it will break. So, as it appears, the test is not portable. > I can simplify it in the following way: > > --- /dev/null > +++ b/elf/tst-split-dynreloc.lds > @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@ > +SECTIONS > +{ > + .rela.dyn : { *(.rela.dyn) } > + .rel.dyn : { *(.rel.dyn) } > + . += 1000; > + .rela.plt : { *(.rela.plt) } > + .rel.plt : { *(.rel.plt) } > +} > +INSERT BEFORE .init; > > This would also remove the need for __((section(".bar"))) in the test. > What do you think? that seems kind of dicey. i think doing it explicitly like you were before is less risky ? i thought we used linker scripts in glibc tests more, but i'm not actually finding any. i'm not sure if we're trying to avoid them. there's no way to produce a test that doesn't use linker scripts but still triggers the problem you're fixing ? -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |