Re: [David Mosberger <davidm@hpl.hp.com>] problem with unwind info for .init/.fini sections

["H . J . Lu" <hjl@lucon.org>]

On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 02:37:47PM -0800, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> Another mail from David.  He'll eventually manage to get the mailing
> list handler to accept his machine.
> 

> From: David Mosberger <davidm@hpl.hp.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Message-ID: <15486.41523.514655.290242@napali.hpl.hp.com>
> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 13:33:39 -0800
> To: <binutils@sources.redhat.com>
> Cc: "David Mosberger" <davidm@hpl.hp.com>, Cary Coutant <cary@cup.hp.com>,
>         <linux-ia64@linuxia64.org>, libc-hacker@sources.redhat.com
> Subject: Re: [Linux-ia64] problem with unwind info for .init/.fini sections
> In-Reply-To: <200202271920.LAA10765@adlmail.cup.hp.com>
> References: <200202271920.LAA10765@adlmail.cup.hp.com>
> 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/
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> 
> >>>>> On Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:19:30 -0800, Cary Coutant <cary@cup.hp.com> said:
> 
>   >> I can think of two approaches:
>   >> ...
>   >> Anybody else have a better idea or other comments?
> 
>   Cary> (3) Use the .init_array and .fini_array sections instead.
> 
> This would be by far the cleanest solution.
> 
> How well is this supported in binutils at the moment?  I see some
> references to it, but am not sure whether there are any holes in its
> support.
> 
> Are there any reasons *not* to switch to .init_array/.fini_array as
> the primary init/fini mechanism?  Besides fixing the unwind problem,
> it seems to me it's generally just a much cleaner solution and should
> allow us to get rid of some rather ugly hacks in glibc.
> 
> 	--david

I am not sure if .init_array/.fini_array are supported. It will be nice
to add them to binutils. 


H.J.