[RFC] Providing init_fini_syms earlier?
Carlos O'Donell
carlos@systemhalted.org
Mon Jul 11 18:07:00 GMT 2005
More information about the Binutils mailing list
Mon Jul 11 18:07:00 GMT 2005
- Previous message (by thread): [RFC] Providing init_fini_syms earlier?
- Next message (by thread): [RFC] Providing init_fini_syms earlier?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 10:47:41AM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote: > On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 10:51:07AM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 07:45:00AM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote: > > > That was a glibc bug. I posted a patch for the linker bug. > > > > There may have been a linker bug, but it doesn't solve the problem. > > The symbol provide by the linker is still too late for the backend to > > do anything about the extra reloc space. > > Please try the linker patch with the FIXED glibc. Could you provide a reference to your libc patch please? I know you recently posted: 2005-04-13 H.J. Lu <hongjiu.lu@intel.com> [BZ #974] ... Though it doesn't look like that patch would change the definitions of the symbols. I'm a bit confused because it also looks like the definition in 2.3.2 were marked hidden. c.
- Previous message (by thread): [RFC] Providing init_fini_syms earlier?
- Next message (by thread): [RFC] Providing init_fini_syms earlier?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Binutils mailing list