From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22855 invoked by alias); 16 Mar 2011 09:37:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 22789 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Mar 2011 09:37:48 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,FREEMAIL_REPLYTO,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RFC_ABUSE_POST X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-qw0-f41.google.com (HELO mail-qw0-f41.google.com) (209.85.216.41) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:37:41 +0000 Received: by qwa26 with SMTP id 26so1457350qwa.0 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 02:37:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.214.208 with SMTP id hb16mr365573qcb.260.1300268259394; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 02:37:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.73.105 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 02:37:39 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: sedat.dilek@gmail.com In-Reply-To: <508A631B-85B5-4C5F-8294-FB4454DA246E@adacore.com> References: <508A631B-85B5-4C5F-8294-FB4454DA246E@adacore.com> Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:37:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Release 2.21.1 ? From: Sedat Dilek To: Tristan Gingold Cc: binutils Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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/msg00327.txt.bz2 On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Tristan Gingold 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