Re: Advice needed on when to synthesize <sym>.high_bound in ld

[Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>]

HI Greg,

: > 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.

Actually I checked afterwards, and I think that your patch will be OK
in this case.  It is working after the common symbols have been
resolved, so the sizes should be accurate.

: > 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.

Umm, I seem to remember that COFF limits its section names to 8
characters, which would make adding a md5 post-fix or a .gnu.linkonce
prefix a bit problematic.  Of course I could be wrong about this.

Cheers
	Nick