This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Advice needed on when to synthesize <sym>.high_bound in ld
- To: Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>
- Subject: Re: Advice needed on when to synthesize <sym>.high_bound in ld
- From: Greg McGary <greg at mcgary dot org>
- Date: 08 Sep 2000 18:02:33 -0700
- Cc: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- References: <200009090052.RAA17884@elmo.cygnus.com>
Nick Clifton <nickc@redhat.com> writes:
> Symbols do have a size. In fact it is the size of common symbols that
> is problematic, as it can change of a bigger definition of the symbol
> comes along. (Would your patch handle this BTW ?)
I assumed that the common symbols had already been merged by the time
I checked for high bound, but I'm not certain that's justified. I'll
investigate.
> Since we are talking ELF here, in theory all you need to do is to get
> hold of the elf_link_hash_entry structure for the symbol and examine
> its 'size' field. You might look, for example at the function
> bfd_elf_link_hash_newfunc() in bfd/elf.c
OK. Since I already have people trying to use this with COFF, I'd
like to get that working as well. If COFF keeps sizes for its
init-data symbols, then it's easy. If it doesn't, then I can
make gcc generate the high-bound symbols for the COFF case.
Greg