From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
To: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>
Cc: Nick Clifton <nickc@redhat.com>,
serge.guelton@telecom-bretagne.eu, binutils@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: RFC: Document unexpected behaviour of --fatal-warnings
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 14:52:09 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMe9rOr5Ap0PMWSJf2V-D3W8X_etuCUQPBZ6G8ey9Xpmt6XmNw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMe9rOpiY7QB15+JqhsLuRmTabJ4JoJavq0dVqPG=EtUv-1dpQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 8:06 AM H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 7:15 AM Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Nick Clifton <nickc@redhat.com> writes:
> >
> > > Hi Guys,
> >
> > Hi Nick,
> >
> > >
> > > It was recently pointed out to me that the bfd linker's
> > > --fatal-warnings option can behave in an unexpected manner. For
> > > example:
> > >
> > > $ ld.bfd -z bad-option --fatal-warnings -e 0/dev/null
> > > ld.bfd: warning: -z bad-option ignored
> > > $ echo $?
> > > 0
> > >
> > > ie the warning about the ignored option is not being treated as an
> > > error. This happens because the --fatal-warnings option only takes
> > > affect after it has been processed, and we process the options in a
> > > linear order. So the following works:
> > >
> > > $ ld.bfd --fatal-warnings -z bad-option -e 0 /dev/null
> > > ld.bfd: warning: -z bad-option ignored
> > > $ echo $?
> > > 1
> > >
> > > This behaviour differs from gold and lld, both of which honour
> > > --fatal-warnings no matter where it occurs on the command line.
> > >
> > > So we could fix the linker, create a two pass argument scan and the
> > > problem would be solved. But a) I am lazy and b) we already have a
> > > precedent for options on the command line only affecting options that
> > > come after it. (I am thinking of the -L option here, although there
> > > are probably several others). So instead I am considering documenting
> > > the current behaviour as expected. (See the patch below).
> > >
> > > What do people think ?
> >
> > I'm OK with it either way. We're really used to this kind of linker
> > behaviour so it's not a problem to just document it. I've not hit
> > this as a problem at all.
> >
> > Then if someone wants to improve it later on, so be it.
> >
> > (We could maybe change the docs to say "may not affect" if we want
> > leeway to change it later.)
>
> I opened:
>
> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31289
>
> and will submit a fix this week.
>
A patch is posted at:
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2024-January/132106.html
--
H.J.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-01-24 22:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-01-23 12:28 Nick Clifton
2024-01-23 12:38 ` Jan Beulich
2024-01-23 12:50 ` H.J. Lu
2024-01-23 13:15 ` H.J. Lu
2024-01-24 15:07 ` Serge Guelton
2024-01-24 15:13 ` Sam James
2024-01-24 16:06 ` H.J. Lu
2024-01-24 22:52 ` H.J. Lu [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAMe9rOr5Ap0PMWSJf2V-D3W8X_etuCUQPBZ6G8ey9Xpmt6XmNw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=hjl.tools@gmail.com \
--cc=binutils@sourceware.org \
--cc=nickc@redhat.com \
--cc=sam@gentoo.org \
--cc=serge.guelton@telecom-bretagne.eu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).