This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: .eh_frame section on alpha
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Simon Burge <simonb at wasabisystems dot com>, Ian Lance Taylor <ian at airs dot com>, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 10:58:09 +0100
- Subject: Re: .eh_frame section on alpha
- References: <20041229073919.8EEE02356C@thoreau.thistledown.com.au> <41DA653D.6030101@redhat.com>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 09:43:25AM +0000, Nick Clifton wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> >>However, I also think it would be a good idea to have an assembler
> >>option to not create the unwind information.
>
> >Strongly agreed :-) I can come up with a patch, but I'm not sure what a
> >good option name would be. --no-auto-eh-frame seems a little unwieldy.
>
> How about: --no-create-eh-frame ?
>
> I see no problem with long switch names. It is better that they are
> expressive and tell the user what they are doing. Shorter, more compact
> switch names are often confusing and can lead to user misunderstanding.
Can't this be done already without adding new options with a
/DISCARD/ : { *(.eh_frame) }
in the linker script?
Jakub