new warning with 2.19

[Joel Sherrill]

Tristan Gingold wrote:
> On Dec 4, 2008, at 9:32 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
>
>   
>> On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 08:39:30AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>     
>>> * Is the call to ld triggering the warning correct?
>>>       
>> Well it is rather unusual to specify -e with -r.  It really only makes
>> sense if your system runs relocatable executables.
>>     
>
> Unless you also want to use --gc-sections.  In this case, -e SYM  
> specifies the root symbol.
>   
We are extending the gcc specs with this rule:

*link:
%{!qrtems: %(old_link)} %{qrtems: -Qy -dp -Bstatic -N -e _start}

And apparently gcc has always passed that through for -r as
well but ld did not complain.

It is benign.  It is a behaviour that changed.  And there is
probably room for everyone involved to fix something:

+ gcc probably shouldn't pass the same *spec for -r
    and final links.
+ ld shouldn't complain when the entry argument
    doesn't matter. 
+ rtems bsp's can fix their specs. (example patch
    attached).

I can fix the RTEMS bsp_specs fairly quickly so 1 of the
three can be killed.  Ralf.. are you OK with the bsp_specs
change?  You shouldn't be specifying the start address unless
you are using the start file.

--joel
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bsp_specs.diff
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 681 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/attachments/20081204/3879c63b/attachment.bin>