From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27607 invoked by alias); 17 Mar 2011 02:38:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 27595 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Mar 2011 02:38:36 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-iw0-f169.google.com (HELO mail-iw0-f169.google.com) (209.85.214.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 02:38:31 +0000 Received: by iwl42 with SMTP id 42so2939547iwl.0 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 19:38:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.43.70.2 with SMTP id ye2mr1114798icb.345.1300329509325; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 19:38:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bubble.grove.modra.org ([115.187.252.19]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u9sm299839ibe.36.2011.03.16.19.38.27 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 16 Mar 2011 19:38:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bubble.grove.modra.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A14D1170C1FA; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 13:08:22 +1030 (CST) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 02:38:00 -0000 From: Alan Modra To: Matt Fischer Cc: binutils@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Load addresses for ELF program headers on ARM Message-ID: <20110317023822.GY6275@bubble.grove.modra.org> Mail-Followup-To: Matt Fischer , binutils@sourceware.org References: <20101011015506.GM26553@bubble.grove.modra.org> <20101011032919.GP26553@bubble.grove.modra.org> <20101011144357.GA1024@caradoc.them.org> <20110316042923.GQ6275@bubble.grove.modra.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2011-03/txt/msg00339.txt.bz2 On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 07:37:30PM -0500, Matt Fischer wrote: > That does seem to fix the problem. It looks like that change simply > disables the VMA check on the section, which makes sense because in > this model the section's VMA won't be inside of the segment anymore. > Given that the code inside this block looks like it can correctly deal > with a segment that contains noncontiguous VMA's, I'm assuming this > change is ok to submit as an actual patch, correct? If so, I'd be > happy to write it up and submit it, if you'd like. I figured the change would fix your particular testcase. The difficult part of "see what happens" is determining what this change might break, and convincing me or another binutils maintainer that the change is safe.. At the moment I don't have time to investigate that myself. > > --Matt > > On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 11:29 PM, Alan Modra wrote: > > You might like to change the ELF_SECTION_IN_SEGMENT (hdr, phdr) in > > elf.c:_bfd_elf_make_section_from_shdr to > > ELF_SECTION_IN_SEGMENT_1 (hdr, phdr, 0, 0), and see what happens. -- Alan Modra Australia Development Lab, IBM