linker relocation of debug information

Daniel Jacobowitz drow@mvista.com
Wed Jan 28 19:54:00 GMT 2004


On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 02:51:51PM -0500, Jeff Baker wrote:
> Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that a developer was locked into
> using binutils 2.12.1 and gdb 5.2.1 for an upcoming release.  Let's also say
> that this developer is unable to step into shared object because the debug
> sections aren't relocated.  What would you suggest as a solution?

Pick one - merge the patches from CVS GDB to support relocating
sections, or else disable emitting of the relocs.  If you diff CVS
binutils and HJ's binutils for PPC, you will probably find a change
that disables it for PPC, so that may point you in the right place.

> 
> > 
> > Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> writes:
> > 
> > > On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 04:31:16PM -0500, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > > > Jeff Baker <jbaker@qnx.com> writes:
> > > >
> > > > > Does anyone remember when this behaviour was changed in the
> > binutils?
> > > >
> > > > Well, see this message I wrote a few years back for some more
> > > > background information.  Even at the time the situation was confused.
> > > >     http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/1999-q2/msg00046.html
> > >
> > > Well, in reference to that specific confusion - I believe that GCC no
> > > longer generates debug information which includes the address of
> > > external symbols.
> > 
> > Actually, the confusion I meant was that different targets behaved in
> > different ways.
> > 
> > I don't personally care what happens with this.
> > 
> > Ian
> 

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer



More information about the Binutils mailing list