From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20194 invoked by alias); 16 Mar 2005 02:50:24 -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 20020 invoked from network); 16 Mar 2005 02:50:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO gizmo09bw.bigpond.com) (144.140.70.19) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 16 Mar 2005 02:50:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 314 invoked from network); 16 Mar 2005 02:50:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bwmam12.bigpond.com) (144.135.24.103) by gizmo09bw.bigpond.com with SMTP; 16 Mar 2005 02:50:12 -0000 Received: from cpe-144-136-221-26.sa.bigpond.net.au ([144.136.221.26]) by bwmam12.bigpond.com(MAM REL_3_4_2a 189/33618907) with SMTP id 33618907; Wed, 16 Mar 2005 12:50:12 +1000 Received: by bubble.modra.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 91076175AF9; Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:20:12 +1030 Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 02:50:00 -0000 From: Alan Modra To: "H. J. Lu" Cc: binutils@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFC: Remove empty output sections Message-ID: <20050316025012.GG21148@bubble.modra.org> Mail-Followup-To: "H. J. Lu" , binutils@sources.redhat.com References: <20050224203631.GA19728@lucon.org> <20050224234206.GA22853@lucon.org> <422458B8.3070704@redhat.com> <20050314063141.GB21065@lucon.org> <20050314083515.GL13506@bubble.modra.org> <20050314161048.GA29522@lucon.org> <20050314221544.GD1224@bubble.modra.org> <20050315195824.GA25667@lucon.org> <20050315203845.GA26237@lucon.org> <20050316023246.GA3794@lucon.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050316023246.GA3794@lucon.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2005-03/txt/msg00424.txt.bz2 On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 06:32:46PM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote: > One benefit of removing empty sections late is there will be no > layout changes. That's true. > The only changes are > 1. No empty sections in section table. > 2. Some undefine section symbols in .dynsym. > 3. No empty segment. Well, that's good. I was worried that something might go wrong with dynamic section symbols, but it seems that you are OK there. Patch is OK for mainline. -- Alan Modra IBM OzLabs - Linux Technology Centre