This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: RFA: Don't canonicalize STT_SECTION syms
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 04:02:02PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 12:07:29AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > drow@nevyn:~/qtmp% ld -r -o foo foo.o bar.o
>
> Mutter. ld -r. Mutter.
Well, you could get the same result using a final link.
> > 00000000 l d foo 00000000 foo
> > 00000000 *UND* 00000000 foo
> >
> > I'd be really confused! "Why didn't 'foo' resolve to 'foo'?" the user
> > asks me...
>
> Well, I'm not wedded to the trick I used. In fact, I made provision for
> reverting the elfcode.h change without needing to change the testsuite.
>
> Having the name there does have some benefit, for example with these
> section syms that some targets emit:
>
> 00000000 l d *ABS* 00000000 .shstrtab
> 00000000 l d *ABS* 00000000 .symtab
> 00000000 l d *ABS* 00000000 .strtab
Hmm, yeah (another note for "weird elf things" volume #37... section
symbols not in a section? how DOES that work?).
I've been forcibly reminded that STT_SECTION symbols are not, in
principle, all that special. You could have one with a name, or
without. Objdump would ideally reveal that difference - though I have
gotten in the habit of using readelf when I need this much precision,
since its output better corresponds to ELF, which is (gasp) better
documented than BFD internals.
How _do_ absolute section symbols work anyway?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz