This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: bfd is broken
On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 12:24:51PM -0500, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 09:22:22AM -0800, H . J . Lu wrote:
> > > E.g. if a.s has:
> > > .section ".rodata.str1.1", "aMS", @progbits, 1
> > > .LC1: .asciiz "foobar"
> > > .LC2: .asciiz "bogusstr"
> > >
> > > and b.s has:
> > > .section ".rodata.str1.1", "aMS", @progbits, 1
> > > .LC3: .asciiz "bar"
> > > .LC4: .asciiz "str"
> > >
> > > then b.o's .rodata.str1.1 section will be SEC_EXCLUDE, but .LC3 needs to be
> > > translated to .LC1 + 3 and .LC4 to .LC2 + 5.
> >
> > I believe it is what happened in my case. May I suggest to back out
> > the broken patch? We will fix it later when a testcase is provided?
>
> Geoff sais where is the testcase (gcc testsuite gcsec-1.c).
I tried. I couldn't get gcsec-1.c to fail on Linux/x86. I am wondering
how it failed for him.
> I was looking for a testcase where it failed for you, so if you think the
> above is what happens, no further need for it (though it should probably
> be added as a testcase for ld).
I will see what I can do. I may write one which only runs on Linux/x86.
It should be good enough for catching breakage.
H.J.