From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <libc-hacker-return-4997-listarch-libc-hacker=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 19392 invoked by alias); 2 Mar 2002 19:13:26 -0000
Mailing-List: contact libc-hacker-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:libc-hacker-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-hacker/>
List-Post: <mailto:libc-hacker@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:libc-hacker-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: libc-hacker-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 19349 invoked from network); 2 Mar 2002 19:13:25 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO deimos.hpl.hp.com) (192.6.19.190)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 Mar 2002 19:13:25 -0000
Received: from hplms2.hpl.hp.com (hplms2.hpl.hp.com [15.0.152.33])
	by deimos.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_24419)/HPL-PA Relay) with ESMTP id LAA00208;
	Sat, 2 Mar 2002 11:13:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from napali.hpl.hp.com (napali.hpl.hp.com [15.4.89.123])
	by hplms2.hpl.hp.com (8.10.2/8.10.2 HPL-PA Hub) with ESMTP id g22JDEp11920;
	Sat, 2 Mar 2002 11:13:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from napali.hpl.hp.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by napali.hpl.hp.com (8.12.1/8.12.1/Debian -5) with ESMTP id g22JDEf7013852;
	Sat, 2 Mar 2002 11:13:14 -0800
Received: (from davidm@localhost)
	by napali.hpl.hp.com (8.12.1/8.12.1/Debian -5) id g22JDDhW013848;
	Sat, 2 Mar 2002 11:13:13 -0800
From: David Mosberger <davidm@napali.hpl.hp.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <15489.9289.875243.619282@napali.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 11:13:00 -0000
To: "H . J . Lu" <hjl@lucon.org>
Cc: davidm@hpl.hp.com, Alan Modra <amodra@bigpond.net.au>,
        Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>,
        Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>,
        GNU libc hacker <libc-hacker@sources.redhat.com>,
        binutils@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [David Mosberger <davidm@hpl.hp.com>] problem with unwind info for .init/.fini sections
In-Reply-To: <20020302105939.A29014@lucon.org>
References: <15486.55079.333535.999190@napali.hpl.hp.com>
	<20020228173311.A26728@lucon.org>
	<15486.56491.696020.742674@napali.hpl.hp.com>
	<20020228175426.A30756@redhat.com>
	<15487.8879.719511.86715@napali.hpl.hp.com>
	<20020228225757.A30933@redhat.com>
	<15487.51034.573513.390031@napali.hpl.hp.com>
	<20020302003645.A20582@lucon.org>
	<20020302101931.GM1059@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au>
	<15489.2452.737686.119846@napali.hpl.hp.com>
	<20020302105939.A29014@lucon.org>
X-Mailer: VM 7.01 under Emacs 21.1.1
Reply-To: davidm@hpl.hp.com
X-URL: http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/David_Mosberger/
X-SW-Source: 2002-03/txt/msg00011.txt.bz2

>>>>> On Sat, 2 Mar 2002 10:59:39 -0800, "H . J . Lu" <hjl@lucon.org> said:

  HJ> The problem is you are searching all input files. It doesn't
  HJ> matter they are used or not.

Doesn't your patch do the same?  It's safe to create the entries
needlessly, though it would obviously be better if that didn't happen.
If you know a way to do that, great.

  HJ> Here is a new patch.

Looks to me like this could end up creating the same DT*ARRAY entries
multiple times, no?

  HJ> Also, those new sections should be in the data segment.

Good point.

  HJ> BTW, should we allow both .init/.fini and the array sections.

Yes.

  HJ> If both exist, how should ld.so treat them?

See the Sys V ABI.  IIRC, .init gets executed before .init_array and
.fini_array gets executed before .fini.

	--david