From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21051 invoked by alias); 7 May 2011 14:29:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 21041 invoked by uid 22791); 7 May 2011 14:29:46 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RFC_ABUSE_POST X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-wy0-f169.google.com (HELO mail-wy0-f169.google.com) (74.125.82.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 07 May 2011 14:29:32 +0000 Received: by wyf19 with SMTP id 19so3728850wyf.0 for ; Sat, 07 May 2011 07:29:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.208.12 with SMTP id ga12mr5042413wbb.68.1304778570500; Sat, 07 May 2011 07:29:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.99] (cpc2-cmbg8-0-0-cust61.5-4.cable.virginmedia.com [82.6.108.62]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x13sm2134249wby.42.2011.05.07.07.29.28 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 07 May 2011 07:29:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4DC55738.2010208@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 07 May 2011 14:29:00 -0000 From: Dave Korn User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Korn , "binutils@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH,plugins,head+2.21] Fix pr12365 on COFF. References: <4DC431C1.3050406@gmail.com> <20110507061306.GQ7018@bubble.grove.modra.org> In-Reply-To: <20110507061306.GQ7018@bubble.grove.modra.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2011-05/txt/msg00096.txt.bz2 On 07/05/2011 07:13, Alan Modra wrote: > On Fri, May 06, 2011 at 06:37:05PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote: >> Tested on i686-pc-cygwin, fixes PR12365 and current failures in the >> ld-plugin tests and HJ's lto tests except for the ones that rely on mixed IR >> and non-IR relocatable links. >> >> OK for head and backport to branch in a couple of days time? > > OK. > >> + /* Complain if definition comes from a discarded section. */ >> + if (ps->flags & SEC_EXCLUDE) > > Strictly speaking this only tests for one class of discarded sections. > I'm happy with the test, just the comment is a little misleading. Reworded to "an excluded section", and applied after remembering to reference the PR in the changelogs. cheers, DaveK