This is the mail archive of the binutils@sourceware.org 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: Relocation against discarded sections

From: Evandro Menezes <evandro at yahoo dot com>
To: Kris Van Hees <kris dot van dot hees at oracle dot com>, Cary Coutant <ccoutant at google dot com>
Cc: binutils at sourceware dot org, Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 09:20:18 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Relocation against discarded sections
References: <983070.12507.qm@web110601.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20081217204922.GA10985@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <361114.90167.qm@web110605.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <c17be2b30812171436l26a6e6a9m3c31b0975a5c5897@mail.gmail.com> <20081217232720.GJ27522@oracle.com>

Kris,



> I have been looking at a similar problem, that according to a colleague is
> most likely the culprit.  Apparently this is related to an old gcc bug that
> used to have a workaround in ld (later removed from ld).  It might still be
> popping up perhaps (or in my case, I'm dealing with a library that I cannot
> recompile that has been compiled using an older gcc with the bug present).

Can someone please point out the previous work-around in LD?  BTW, where are duplicate link-once sections discarded?

TIA

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Relocation against discarded sections
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor

References:
- Relocation against discarded sections
  - From: Evandro Menezes
- Re: Relocation against discarded sections
  - From: Jan Kratochvil
- Re: Relocation against discarded sections
  - From: Evandro Menezes
- Re: Relocation against discarded sections
  - From: Cary Coutant
- Re: Relocation against discarded sections
  - From: Kris Van Hees

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