Home Original page

[RFC] Providing init_fini_syms earlier?

H. J. Lu hjl@lucon.org
Thu Jul 7 17:41:00 GMT 2005 
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 02:50:11AM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 09:59:04PM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 12:47:19AM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 02:34:13PM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 04:44:37PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> > > > > The following:
> > > > > http://www.baldric.uwo.ca/~carlos/bug.tar.gz
> > > > > 
> > > > > Will complain on a bad binutils. 
> > > > 
> > > > Does it work with a cross linker?
> > > 
> > > Why do you ask? What do you have in mind?
> > 
> > If I can reproduce it on Linux/ia32 with a cross linker, I will try
> > to take a look.
> 
> My pleasure.
> 
> http://www.baldric.uwo.ca/~carlos/bug-extraNONE.tar.gz
> 
> Contains everything you need to test the bug in a cross link
> environment. You will see that two extra R_PARISC_NONE relocs are
> emitted, and they correspond to the undefined __init_array_start and
> __init_array_end.
> 
> If the linker doesn't provide the symbols early enough the bakends can't
> do the work of ignoring them? :)

That is the libc bug on hppa. __init_array_start and __init_array_end
should be used ONLY for building STATIC executables. Please check out
how ia32, x86-64 and ia64 handle them.



H.J.
More information about the Binutils mailing list