From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8501 invoked by alias); 11 Apr 2011 15:40:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 8380 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Apr 2011 15:40:08 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 15:40:01 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p3BFdaxg016065 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 11 Apr 2011 11:39:37 -0400 Received: from [10.36.5.44] (vpn1-5-44.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.5.44]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p3BFdZEN025929; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 11:39:35 -0400 Message-ID: <4DA320D4.6070300@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 15:40:00 -0000 From: Nick Clifton User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110307 Fedora/3.1.9-0.39.b3pre.fc14 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chris Quenelle CC: Jakub Jelinek , Tristan Gingold , binutils@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Sun/Oracle C++ compiler patch References: <4D66F521.8010902@oracle.com> <50CDB2D0-36A5-48E2-94FE-91F7032F5B0A@adacore.com> <20110225121917.GK13037@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz> <4D9542BB.8080804@oracle.com> In-Reply-To: <4D9542BB.8080804@oracle.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2011-04/txt/msg00163.txt.bz2 Hi Chris, > I'm not really sure that the "ONLY_IF_RW" in the linker script maps onto > the sh_flags field having the SHF_WRITE bit turned on in the section > header table. Could you confirm that? It does. > Currently our exception range sections are writable, but I haven't been > able to confirm that's necessary because of fixups by the C++ runtime > system. If it's not necessary or if we change it later, it would be > nice if the linker didn't need more modification. Agreed. > Is there any harm in allowing the same behavior if our sections later > become read-only? None. > .gcc_except_table ${RELOCATING-0} : ONLY_IF_RO { *(.gcc_except_table > .gcc_except_table.*) } > + .exception_ranges ${RELOCATING-0} : ONLY_IF_RO { *(.exception_ranges > .exception_ranges*) } > .gcc_except_table ${RELOCATING-0} : ONLY_IF_RW { *(.gcc_except_table > .gcc_except_table.*) } > + .exception_ranges ${RELOCATING-0} : ONLY_IF_RW { *(.exception_ranges > .exception_ranges*) } The patch looks OK to me, and so I have checked it in along with this changelog entry. I did take Tristan's suggestion however and so I added a comment explaining where the .exception_ranges section originates. Cheers Nick ld/ChangeLog 2011-04-11 Chris Quenelle * scripttempl/elf.sc (.exception_ranges): Add new section.