This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the binutils 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]

Re: SHT_GROUP Support in binutils

From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
To: Jessica Han <jessica at cup dot hp dot com>, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com, reva at cup dot hp dot com, sje at cup dot hp dot com
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 12:16:14 +0100
Subject: Re: SHT_GROUP Support in binutils
References: <013901c197be$b9ad7e60$2f65000f@JH761542> <20020107235115.GB21859@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au> <20020108101448.A31005@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz> <20020108110255.GI21859@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au>
Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>

On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 09:32:55PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 10:14:48AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Why is it needed
> 
> It isn't needed for eh_frame now, which is another reason why I haven't
> continued with the gcc patch.  There may be other good uses for
> section groups though.

Of course, I just mentioned it because .-foo is no longer problem...

	Jakub

Follow-Ups:
- RE: SHT_GROUP Support in binutils
  - From: Jessica Han

References:
- SHT_GROUP Support in binutils
  - From: Jessica Han
- Re: SHT_GROUP Support in binutils
  - From: Alan Modra
- Re: SHT_GROUP Support in binutils
  - From: Jakub Jelinek
- Re: SHT_GROUP Support in binutils
  - From: Alan Modra

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]