Home Original page

PATCH: Fix linkonce for ELF/PPC.

H . J . Lu hjl@lucon.org
Mon Oct 29 08:48:00 GMT 2001 
On Sun, Oct 28, 2001 at 10:49:39PM -0800, H . J . Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 05:04:55PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 28, 2001 at 09:58:26PM -0800, H . J . Lu wrote:
> > > 
> > > I don't know how it happens on ELF/PPC. The problem can be in linker,
> > > gcc and glibc. What I saw was the gcc couldn't catch the exception with
> > > libstdc++.so built by the current ld. It just aborted. Also see
> > > 
> > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-09/msg01248.html
> > > 
> > > It may or may not be related. Feel to find a real fix for the problem.
> > > But we still need a workaround in the meantime.
> > 
> > Hmm, considering the above post and Geoff Keating's previous remarks
> > ( http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2001-06/msg00413.html ) about
> 
> FWIW, binutils 2.11.92.0.10 seems ok with static libstdc++.a in gcc
> 3.1.
> 
> > requiring zeros, I can't see how we can implement a correct solution
> > in binutils.  It seems to me that this is a gcc bug, and we shouldn't
> > be tweaking binutils at all.
> 
> It is ok with me as long as we all agree it is a gcc bug.
> 
> Franz, do you have any problems with the current Linux/PPC gcc and
> binutils 2.11.92.0.10? If not, please report it as a gcc 3.x bug.
> 
> 

I have a question. Is it possible for ELF/PPC that for symbol reference,
the assembler generates RELA relocations such that the static/dynamic
linkers have to apply addend, even for undefined symbols?


H.J.
More information about the Binutils mailing list