ld (bfd?) bug: unmatched excluded include in stabs
Mattias EngdegÄrd
mattias@virtutech.se
Tue Nov 18 15:26:00 GMT 2003
More information about the Binutils mailing list
Tue Nov 18 15:26:00 GMT 2003
- Previous message (by thread): ld (bfd?) bug: unmatched excluded include in stabs
- Next message (by thread): ld (bfd?) bug: unmatched excluded include in stabs
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
>Not being an expert on STABS, I am not sure if the following question >makes any sense, but I will ask it anyway: Is this the correct >behaviour for the linker, or should it be ignoring the EXCL gamma.h >when computing the checksum for the BINCL of alfa.h ? I think ignoring EXCLs when computing checksums makes sense, since that would give the same behaviour as if the EXCL were replaced by the equivalent BINCL ... EINCL sequence. The correct behaviour is largely defined by Sun's linker, but it does not elide duplicated includes when doing partial links anyway. >Yes - please send the testcase to the list. (I assume that it is a >*small* testcase ? :-) It's small. ftp://ptah.lnf.kth.se/pub/misc/bug.tar.gz Here is the proposed patch, which seems to cure it: --- binutils-031118/bfd/stabs.c~ Tue Nov 4 12:30:54 2003 +++ binutils-031118/bfd/stabs.c Tue Nov 18 16:24:01 2003 @@ -358,6 +358,8 @@ incl_type = incl_sym[TYPEOFF]; if (incl_type == 0) break; + else if (incl_type == (int) N_EXCL) + continue; else if (incl_type == (int) N_EINCL) { if (nest == 0)
- Previous message (by thread): ld (bfd?) bug: unmatched excluded include in stabs
- Next message (by thread): ld (bfd?) bug: unmatched excluded include in stabs
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Binutils mailing list