From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Lance Taylor To: Martin.Dorey@Madge.com Cc: binutils@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: binutils patches for basic generic i960-elf Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 11:20:00 -0000 Message-id: <19990817172905.14821.qmail@daffy.airs.com> References: <4110BC526A58D211B56C0000F6B9636D01F58137@ws-exch01.dev.madge.com> X-SW-Source: 1999-08/msg00100.html From: Martin Dorey Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 10:27:13 +0100 > My bfd config uses the generic linker - it doesn't provide an > i960-elf-specific backend relocate_section(). > In general, I recommend writing this. Without it, you won't get many > of the features of the ELF linker. Que? bfdint.texi recommends this on the grounds of efficiency and the ability to handle dynamic linking, neither of which I'm particularly bothered about for this target. Is there anything else I'm missing out on by not defining the processor-specific stuff? Actually, there's not as much as I thought. There are various features which you only get by defining relocate_section, but most of them are related to dynamic linking. The only one I see offhand which you aren't getting is warning sections, and perhaps some error checking involving symbol types. > I wonder if it is really correct to discard link once sections when > doing a relocateable link. Say all the .linkonce.t.baz sections are combined into .text. How is the final link then going to know which bits to discard? Or how would you handle the multiple .linkonce.t.baz sections in the relocatable output? Certainly it would be incorrect to combine all .linkonce.t sections into .text when doing a relocateable link. The .linkonce.t sections would have to preserved as independent sections in the output. I tried not discarding the duplicate sections when doing a relocateable link, but it failed because the linker combined the linkonce sections into a single section, and because it caused trouble with the MIPS ELF .reginfo section. Ian