From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15449 invoked by alias); 11 Jan 2002 17:34:34 -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 15327 invoked from network); 11 Jan 2002 17:34:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ocean.lucon.org) (12.234.19.19) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 11 Jan 2002 17:34:21 -0000 Received: by ocean.lucon.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2723C125CB; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 09:34:15 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 09:43:00 -0000 From: "H . J . Lu" To: Jakub Jelinek Cc: Geoff Keating , binutils@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: bfd is broken Message-ID: <20020111093415.A26243@lucon.org> References: <20020110182730.A12778@lucon.org> <200201110454.UAA23642@geoffk.org> <20020110230313.A16747@lucon.org> <20020111105909.B11237@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz> <20020111092222.A26046@lucon.org> <20020111122451.J32403@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20020111122451.J32403@devserv.devel.redhat.com>; from jakub@redhat.com on Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 12:24:51PM -0500 X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00198.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 12:24:51PM -0500, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 09:22:22AM -0800, H . J . Lu wrote: > > > E.g. if a.s has: > > > .section ".rodata.str1.1", "aMS", @progbits, 1 > > > .LC1: .asciiz "foobar" > > > .LC2: .asciiz "bogusstr" > > > > > > and b.s has: > > > .section ".rodata.str1.1", "aMS", @progbits, 1 > > > .LC3: .asciiz "bar" > > > .LC4: .asciiz "str" > > > > > > then b.o's .rodata.str1.1 section will be SEC_EXCLUDE, but .LC3 needs to be > > > translated to .LC1 + 3 and .LC4 to .LC2 + 5. > > > > I believe it is what happened in my case. May I suggest to back out > > the broken patch? We will fix it later when a testcase is provided? > > Geoff sais where is the testcase (gcc testsuite gcsec-1.c). I tried. I couldn't get gcsec-1.c to fail on Linux/x86. I am wondering how it failed for him. > I was looking for a testcase where it failed for you, so if you think the > above is what happens, no further need for it (though it should probably > be added as a testcase for ld). I will see what I can do. I may write one which only runs on Linux/x86. It should be good enough for catching breakage. H.J.