From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1896 invoked by alias); 28 Sep 2006 16:52:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 1884 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Sep 2006 16:52:57 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp101.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com (HELO smtp101.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com) (68.142.198.200) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with SMTP; Thu, 28 Sep 2006 16:52:54 +0000 Received: (qmail 76339 invoked from network); 28 Sep 2006 16:52:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lucon.org) (hjjean@sbcglobal.net@71.146.100.252 with login) by smtp101.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Sep 2006 16:52:52 -0000 Received: by lucon.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 82AEC105CC; Thu, 28 Sep 2006 09:52:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 18:37:00 -0000 From: "H. J. Lu" To: Paul Brook Cc: binutils@sourceware.org, Alan Modra , Paul Koning , vgoyal@redhat.com, drow@false.org, binutils@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Linker Bug or Design Intent (Absolute symbols in zero sized sections) Message-ID: <20060928165251.GA20383@lucon.org> References: <4519350D.2090208@redhat.com> <17689.23227.571136.559871@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <20060926232851.GB1534@bubble.grove.modra.org> <200609281742.31472.paul@codesourcery.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200609281742.31472.paul@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-09/txt/msg00367.txt.bz2 On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 05:42:29PM +0100, Paul Brook wrote: > On Wednesday 27 September 2006 00:28, Alan Modra wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 12:52:11PM -0400, Paul Koning wrote: > > > >>>>> "H" == H J Lu writes: > > > > > > H> Convert section relative symbol to absolute shouldn't be a problem > > > H> in most cases. If we know it may be a problem at link time, we can > > > H> keep it section relative. > > > > > > But what benefit is there in converting symbols from relative to > > > absolute? It seems more logical to leave them alone, always. > > > > We are talking about the case where the section defining the symbol > > is removed from the output. > > If we remove the section shouldn't we also remove the symbol? I have checked in a patch not to remove an empty section if there is a symbol relative to it. H.J. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2156 invoked by alias); 28 Sep 2006 16:52:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 1897 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Sep 2006 16:52:58 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp101.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com (HELO smtp101.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com) (68.142.198.200) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with SMTP; Thu, 28 Sep 2006 16:52:55 +0000 Received: (qmail 76339 invoked from network); 28 Sep 2006 16:52:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lucon.org) (hjjean@sbcglobal.net@71.146.100.252 with login) by smtp101.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Sep 2006 16:52:52 -0000 Received: by lucon.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 82AEC105CC; Thu, 28 Sep 2006 09:52:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 18:53:00 -0000 From: "H. J. Lu" To: Paul Brook Cc: binutils@sourceware.org, Alan Modra , Paul Koning , vgoyal@redhat.com, drow@false.org, binutils@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Linker Bug or Design Intent (Absolute symbols in zero sized sections) Message-ID: <20060928165251.GA20383@lucon.org> References: <4519350D.2090208@redhat.com> <17689.23227.571136.559871@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <20060926232851.GB1534@bubble.grove.modra.org> <200609281742.31472.paul@codesourcery.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200609281742.31472.paul@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-09/txt/msg00368.txt.bz2 Message-ID: <20060928185300.yoKR680Ma7CYpBmXMz5MOzs59AhUN6F2-1MMe9EIZc8@z> On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 05:42:29PM +0100, Paul Brook wrote: > On Wednesday 27 September 2006 00:28, Alan Modra wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 12:52:11PM -0400, Paul Koning wrote: > > > >>>>> "H" == H J Lu writes: > > > > > > H> Convert section relative symbol to absolute shouldn't be a problem > > > H> in most cases. If we know it may be a problem at link time, we can > > > H> keep it section relative. > > > > > > But what benefit is there in converting symbols from relative to > > > absolute? It seems more logical to leave them alone, always. > > > > We are talking about the case where the section defining the symbol > > is removed from the output. > > If we remove the section shouldn't we also remove the symbol? I have checked in a patch not to remove an empty section if there is a symbol relative to it. H.J.