Re: Release 2.21.1 ?

[Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@googlemail.com>]

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Tristan Gingold <gingold@adacore.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 16, 2011, at 7:44 AM, Sedat Dilek wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> while handling several breakages in linux-next kernel, it showed PR
>> gas/12519 (see [1]) is somehow incomplete as it gives no pointer to
>> the symbol name in case of an error.
>> "Mention symbol name in non-constant .size expression." (see [2]) as a
>> follow-up patch definitely helps to enlighten developer's where to dig
>> into occuring problems.
>> "Revert the last change on gas/elf/bad-size.err." (see [3]) is a fixup to [2].
>>
>> It would be nice to see [2] and [3] backported to 2.21-branch.
>
> Why not.
>
> Does it make sense to generate a warning instead of an error in 2.21.1 for backward bug-compatibility ?
> Alan, what's your opinion ?
>
> Tristan.
>
>

H.J. offered a proposal patch ("PATCH: Add
--size-check=[error|warning]") [1] with an easy switch opportunity and
H. Peter Anvin illustrated how the warning switch can be used from
command-line [2].

IIRC there was no official decision what will be the default behaviour:
binutils developers mostly advocate "error" as default, whereas  a lot
of Linux kernel developers want "warning" as default.

Unfortunately, I could not apply (and test) H.J.'s proposal patch and
requested a proper one [3].

- Sedat -


[1] http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2011-03/msg00214.html
[2] http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2011-03/msg00283.html
[3] http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2011-03/msg00263.html