This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the binutils project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: The .sbss section on ELF/x86


> Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 16:23:13 -0800
> From: "H . J . Lu" <hjl@lucon.org>
> Cc: binutils@sourceware.cygnus.com
> Content-Disposition: inline
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
> 
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 12:42:46AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 10:00:48AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 12:13:01PM -0800, H . J . Lu wrote:
> > > > I am not aware ELF/x86 ever uses .sbss. But there is always an empty
> > > > .sbss section in every x86 ELF binart. Does it have to be therre?
> > > 
> > > No.  From memory, I think the PROVIDEs in the sbss output section
> > > will create the section.
> > 
> > So IMHO there is the question whether ld should provide __sbss_start etc.
> > symbols even if there is no .sbss section or not.
> > If yes, then the linker script should be:
> >   __bss_start = .;
> >   PROVIDE (__sbss_start = .);
> >   PROVIDE (___sbss_start = .);
> >   .sbss      :
> >   {
> >     *(.dynsbss)
> >     *(.sbss)
> >     *(.sbss.*)
> >     *(.gnu.linkonce.sb.*)
> >     *(.scommon)
> >   }
> >   PROVIDE (__sbss_end = .);
> >   PROVIDE (___sbss_end = .);
> >   .bss       :
> >   {
> >    *(.dynbss)
> >    *(.bss)
> >    *(.bss.*)
> >    *(.gnu.linkonce.b.*)
> >    *(COMMON)
> > 
> > if not, then either PROVIDE should be changed, so that it is skipped if the
> > containing output section is empty, or some other keyword should be used
> > instead. Having empty .sbss in every binary/library is strange...
> > 
> 
> Geoff, I think your patch:
> 
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2000-04/msg00125.html
> 
> caused the empty .sbss section. Could you please tell us how to remove
> the empty .sbss section? If only PPC needs it, can we turn them on only
> when needed?

I'm not sure what needs it now---that patch went in over a year ago,
it's quite likely that something else is now using those symbols.  Is
there some reason why it's causing problems?

-- 
- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org> <geoffk@redhat.com>


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]