* Re: COFF weak symbol report...
[not found] <199810051341.NAA16922@out4.ibm.net>
@ 1998-10-05 8:00 ` Ian Lance Taylor
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Ian Lance Taylor @ 1998-10-05 8:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: snowball3; +Cc: gas2
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread