From: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
To: GNU libc hacker <libc-hacker@sources.redhat.com>
Subject: [David Mosberger <davidm@hpl.hp.com>] problem with unwind info for .init/.fini sections
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 14:38:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m3g03lfd1g.fsf@myware.mynet> (raw)
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 106 bytes --]
Another mail from David. He'll eventually manage to get the mailing
list handler to accept his machine.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 1447 bytes --]
From: David Mosberger <davidm@hpl.hp.com>
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
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 13:33:39 -0800
Message-ID: <15486.41523.514655.290242@napali.hpl.hp.com>
>>>>> 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
next reply other threads:[~2002-02-28 22:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-02-28 14:38 Ulrich Drepper [this message]
2002-02-28 16:58 ` H . J . Lu
2002-02-28 17:19 ` David Mosberger
2002-02-28 17:28 ` Ulrich Drepper
2002-02-28 17:33 ` H . J . Lu
2002-02-28 17:43 ` David Mosberger
[not found] ` <20020228175426.A30756@redhat.com>
2002-02-28 18:01 ` David Mosberger
2002-02-28 18:11 ` H . J . Lu
2002-02-28 22:42 ` David Mosberger
[not found] ` <20020228225757.A30933@redhat.com>
2002-03-01 10:24 ` David Mosberger
[not found] ` <20020301164725.C31581@redhat.com>
2002-03-01 16:56 ` David Mosberger
[not found] ` <20020301170010.A31610@redhat.com>
2002-03-01 17:20 ` David Mosberger
[not found] ` <20020301172558.A31648@redhat.com>
2002-03-01 17:36 ` David Mosberger
2002-03-02 0:36 ` H . J . Lu
[not found] ` <20020302101931.GM1059@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au>
2002-03-02 9:24 ` David Mosberger
2002-03-02 10:59 ` H . J . Lu
2002-03-02 11:13 ` David Mosberger
2002-03-02 11:27 ` H . J . Lu
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=m3g03lfd1g.fsf@myware.mynet \
--to=drepper@redhat.com \
--cc=libc-hacker@sources.redhat.com \
/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).