Re: COFF weak symbol report...

Re: COFF weak symbol report...

[Ian Lance Taylor]

   From: "Mark E." <snowball3@usa.net>
   Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 09:41:22 +0000

   I've made some progress getting weak symbol support into COFF. 
   First, I'd like to ask where do I send my diff patches and which 
   format is preffered?

You can send patches directly to me.  You can also CC the list if you
like.  Send patches in diff -u or -c format, making the diff from the
old file to the new file.  Include ChangeLog entries, but include them
as separate text rather than as a patch to the ChangeLog file (a patch
to the ChangeLog file will almost certainly not apply cleanly).

If the patches are more than a few lines, the FSF requires you to sign
a copyright assignment.  I'll send you the form separately.

   Below is is a sample asm program and the 
   nm and objdump output. Please tell me if anything looks wrong. 
   Also, it seems some UNIX systems using COFF (like SCO OS5) 
   support C_WEAKEXT as 108, but I'm not familiar enough with 
   UNIX to adjust C_WEAKEXT like I did for PE in pe.h.

In the BFD context, we could only support C_WEAKEXT as a storage class
for a specific target which did not already use 108 for anything
else.  For example, perhaps for coff-i386 (only) C_WEAKEXT could be
supported as 108, while for any target C_WEAK could be defined as some
other value.  I see that you used 127, which seems OK to me; can
anybody think of a reason to use a different value?

Ian