bfd is broken

[H . J . Lu]

On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 08:54:51PM -0800, Geoff Keating wrote:
> 
> The configuration I used to test the original patch was x86 Red Hat
> Linux 7 with all updates applied, using the Red Hat GNUPro 00r1
> compiler, without special configure flags; and the bootstrap test
> passed.  When I got your message I ran a build with the toplevel
> binutils CVS tree, the latest bundled compiler gcc-2.96-85, and your two
> special configure flags; and the bootstrap test still passed.  In fact
> all tests pass or xfail.
> 
> I wouldn't expect SEC_EXCLUDE to be used much when building ld.  How
> did you determine that it was my patch?

Backing out your patch fixes ld. Can you tell me how to reproduce your
bug? The .c/.o/.s files are fine.

> 
> Can you be more specific about your system?
> 

Some string constances have bogus values. The only differences are I
am using gcc 2.96-99 and binutils 2.11.92.0.12.3. 


H.J.