* PATCH: Fix typo in elf32-arm.c
@ 2004-11-09 16:54 Mark Mitchell
2004-11-09 17:08 ` Richard Earnshaw
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Mark Mitchell @ 2004-11-09 16:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: binutils; +Cc: dan
Dan Jacobowitz says that I have introduced a warning in elf32-arm.c,
at least when being compiled with newer compilers, due to an incorrect
declaration of elf32_arm_symbian_begin_write_processing. (I declared
it to take a bfd_boolean as its second parameter, even though that it
is clearly incorrect.) While fixing that, I also eliminated the K&R
declarations I had introduced, now that I understand that binutils is
OK with ANSI declarations.
I took the liberty of checking in this patch. Was that inappropriate?
In GCC, this check-in would be OK under the "obvious" rule, but I'm
not sure what the binutils rules are.
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
mark@codesourcery.com
2004-11-09 Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>
* elf32-arm.c (elf32_arm_begin_write_processing): Do not use a K&R
declaration.
(elf32_arm_symbian_modify_segment_map): Likewise.
Index: elf32-arm.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/elf32-arm.c,v
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -c -5 -p -r1.4 elf32-arm.c
*** elf32-arm.c 9 Nov 2004 16:44:31 -0000 1.4
--- elf32-arm.c 9 Nov 2004 16:47:59 -0000
*************** static struct bfd_elf_special_section co
*** 5622,5642 ****
{ ".got", 4, 0, SHT_PROGBITS, 0 },
{ ".hash", 5, 0, SHT_HASH, 0 },
{ NULL, 0, 0, 0, 0 }
};
- static bfd_boolean
- elf32_arm_symbian_modify_segment_map
- PARAMS ((bfd *, struct bfd_link_info *));
- static void
- elf32_arm_symbian_begin_write_processing
- PARAMS ((bfd *, bfd_boolean));
-
static void
! elf32_arm_symbian_begin_write_processing (abfd, linker)
! bfd *abfd;
! bfd_boolean linker;
{
/* BPABI objects are never loaded directly by an OS kernel; they are
processed by a postlinker first, into an OS-specific format. If
the D_PAGED bit is set on the file, BFD will align segments on
page boundaries, so that an OS can directly map the file. With
--- 5622,5635 ----
{ ".got", 4, 0, SHT_PROGBITS, 0 },
{ ".hash", 5, 0, SHT_HASH, 0 },
{ NULL, 0, 0, 0, 0 }
};
static void
! elf32_arm_symbian_begin_write_processing (bfd *abfd,
! struct bfd_link_info *link_info
! ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED)
{
/* BPABI objects are never loaded directly by an OS kernel; they are
processed by a postlinker first, into an OS-specific format. If
the D_PAGED bit is set on the file, BFD will align segments on
page boundaries, so that an OS can directly map the file. With
*************** elf32_arm_symbian_begin_write_processing
*** 5646,5658 ****
loadable segment. */
abfd->flags &= ~D_PAGED;
}
static bfd_boolean
! elf32_arm_symbian_modify_segment_map (abfd, info)
! bfd *abfd;
! struct bfd_link_info *info ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED;
{
struct elf_segment_map *m;
asection *dynsec;
/* BPABI shared libraries and executables should have a PT_DYNAMIC
--- 5639,5651 ----
loadable segment. */
abfd->flags &= ~D_PAGED;
}
static bfd_boolean
! elf32_arm_symbian_modify_segment_map (bfd *abfd,
! struct bfd_link_info *info
! ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED)
{
struct elf_segment_map *m;
asection *dynsec;
/* BPABI shared libraries and executables should have a PT_DYNAMIC
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: PATCH: Fix typo in elf32-arm.c
2004-11-09 16:54 PATCH: Fix typo in elf32-arm.c Mark Mitchell
@ 2004-11-09 17:08 ` Richard Earnshaw
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Richard Earnshaw @ 2004-11-09 17:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Mitchell; +Cc: binutils, dan
On Tue, 2004-11-09 at 16:54, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Dan Jacobowitz says that I have introduced a warning in elf32-arm.c,
> at least when being compiled with newer compilers, due to an incorrect
> declaration of elf32_arm_symbian_begin_write_processing. (I declared
> it to take a bfd_boolean as its second parameter, even though that it
> is clearly incorrect.) While fixing that, I also eliminated the K&R
> declarations I had introduced, now that I understand that binutils is
> OK with ANSI declarations.
>
> I took the liberty of checking in this patch. Was that inappropriate?
> In GCC, this check-in would be OK under the "obvious" rule, but I'm
> not sure what the binutils rules are.
I understand that there are similar 'obvious' rules in binutils.
In this case the patch is fine anyway.
R.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-11-09 17:08 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-11-09 16:54 PATCH: Fix typo in elf32-arm.c Mark Mitchell
2004-11-09 17:08 ` Richard Earnshaw
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).