From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <binutils-return-28075-listarch-binutils=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 4726 invoked by alias); 28 Jul 2003 14:42:54 -0000
Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:binutils-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/>
List-Post: <mailto:binutils@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:binutils-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 4719 invoked from network); 28 Jul 2003 14:42:50 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.localdomain) (195.113.19.66)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 28 Jul 2003 14:42:50 -0000
Received: from sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz (sunsite.mff.cuni.cz [127.0.0.1])
	by localhost.localdomain (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h6SEglqO025803;
	Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:42:47 +0200
Received: (from jakub@localhost)
	by sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6SEgka2025793;
	Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:42:46 +0200
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:42:00 -0000
From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
To: binutils@sources.redhat.com, "H.J. Lu" <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>
Subject: Re: got and plt section attributes
Message-ID: <20030728144245.GP20507@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz>
Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
References: <20030728142440.GY27145@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20030728142440.GY27145@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg00533.txt.bz2

On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 11:54:40PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> This fixes warnings about "setting incorrect section attributes for
> .got" when compiling gcc/config/rs6000/eabi-ci.asm.
> 
> 	 * elf.c (special_sections): Set attributes for .got and .plt.
> 
> Index: bfd/elf.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/elf.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.193
> diff -u -p -r1.193 elf.c
> --- bfd/elf.c	26 Jul 2003 01:06:27 -0000	1.193
> +++ bfd/elf.c	28 Jul 2003 14:10:11 -0000
> @@ -2192,13 +2192,13 @@ static struct bfd_elf_special_section co
>    { ".dynsym",		0,	NULL,	0,
>      SHT_DYNSYM,		SHF_ALLOC },
>    { ".got",		0,	NULL,	0,
> -    SHT_PROGBITS,	0 },
> +    SHT_PROGBITS,	SHF_ALLOC + SHF_WRITE },
>    { ".hash",		0,	NULL,	0,
>      SHT_HASH,		SHF_ALLOC },
>    { ".interp",		0,	NULL,	0,
>      SHT_PROGBITS,	0 },
>    { ".plt",		0,	NULL,	0,
> -    SHT_PROGBITS,	0 },
> +    SHT_PROGBITS,	SHF_ALLOC + SHF_EXECINSTR },

.plt is SHF_ALLOC + SHF_WRITE + SHF_EXECINSTR on about half of ELF arches I
think (and SHT_NOBITS on ppc/ppc64).
Do we really expect half of the arches to define their own special_section
table with .plt section, or shouldn't backends inform ELF generic code
whether they use .got.plt or not?

	Jakub