From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25906 invoked by alias); 7 Aug 2009 00:51:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 25898 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Aug 2009 00:51:24 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nschwmtas01p.mx.bigpond.com (HELO nschwmtas01p.mx.bigpond.com) (61.9.189.137) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:51:16 +0000 Received: from nschwotgx02p.mx.bigpond.com ([121.209.33.16]) by nschwmtas01p.mx.bigpond.com with ESMTP id <20090807005113.YQQU26885.nschwmtas01p.mx.bigpond.com@nschwotgx02p.mx.bigpond.com>; Fri, 7 Aug 2009 00:51:13 +0000 Received: from bubble.grove.modra.org ([121.209.33.16]) by nschwotgx02p.mx.bigpond.com with ESMTP id <20090807005109.PFRA13014.nschwotgx02p.mx.bigpond.com@bubble.grove.modra.org>; Fri, 7 Aug 2009 00:51:09 +0000 Received: by bubble.grove.modra.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 22BAE170C890; Fri, 7 Aug 2009 10:21:09 +0930 (CST) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:51:00 -0000 From: Alan Modra To: Jan Beulich Cc: binutils@sourceware.org Subject: Re: bogus "ignoring changed section type" warning Message-ID: <20090807005109.GB2590@bubble.grove.modra.org> Mail-Followup-To: Jan Beulich , binutils@sourceware.org References: <4A7B066E020000780000E661@vpn.id2.novell.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A7B066E020000780000E661@vpn.id2.novell.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) X-RPD-ScanID: Class unknown; VirusThreatLevel unknown, RefID str=0001.0A150203.4A7B7A81.001F,ss=1,fgs=0 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-08/txt/msg00114.txt.bz2 On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 03:35:58PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > Isn't this warning rather odd for code like this: > > .section .init.rodata,"a" > .section .init.rodata,"a",@progbits > > especially since with just the first directive, the section ends up being > progbits anyway (due to elf_fake_sections() deriving the type from the > section flags)? Yes, there ought to be a warning on the first directive rather than on the second one. > Wouldn't it hence make sense to guess an unspecified > section type from the flags right away, Probably. -- Alan Modra Australia Development Lab, IBM