From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19222 invoked by alias); 18 May 2005 15:33:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 19120 invoked from network); 18 May 2005 15:33:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO palrel10.hp.com) (156.153.255.245) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 18 May 2005 15:33:44 -0000 Received: from hplms2.hpl.hp.com (hplms2.hpl.hp.com [15.0.152.33]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by palrel10.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 333A52727; Wed, 18 May 2005 08:33:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from napali.hpl.hp.com (napali.hpl.hp.com [15.4.89.123]) by hplms2.hpl.hp.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/HPL-PA Hub) with ESMTP id j4IFXg3G008066; Wed, 18 May 2005 08:33:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from napali.hpl.hp.com (napali [127.0.0.1]) by napali.hpl.hp.com (8.13.3/8.13.3/Debian-9) with ESMTP id j4IFXcpO016336; Wed, 18 May 2005 08:33:38 -0700 Received: (from davidm@localhost) by napali.hpl.hp.com (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id j4IFXcS6016333; Wed, 18 May 2005 08:33:38 -0700 From: David Mosberger MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17035.24658.730779.954950@napali.hpl.hp.com> Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 16:27:00 -0000 To: "H. J. Lu" Cc: davidm@hpl.hp.com, Jan Beulich , wilson@specifixinc.com, binutils@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: PATCH: Don't allow ia64 unwind section to point to section in different files In-Reply-To: <20050518152549.GA17453@lucon.org> References: <20050518151523.GA17290@lucon.org> <17035.23884.313219.45955@napali.hpl.hp.com> <20050518152549.GA17453@lucon.org> Reply-To: davidm@hpl.hp.com X-URL: http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/David_Mosberger/ X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg00580.txt.bz2 >>>>> On Wed, 18 May 2005 08:25:49 -0700, "H. J. Lu" said: >> BTW: I still don't quite understand what's makes this part unique >> to the Linux kernel. Wouldn't this problem potentially occur >> whenever linking objects which define a symbol both in weak and >> strong form? HJ> It is not unique to kernel. We just didn't notice it before. OK, thanks for the clarification. I'm really happy we have Harish's unwind-checker script integrated into the normal Linux-kernel build-process. Without that, it would have taken much longer to find the culprit. Thanks for all the help, HJ, Jim, and Jan! --david