This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [Patch mach-o, indirect symbols 1/2] support indirect symbols in mach-o.
On 4 Jan 2012, at 08:26, Tristan Gingold wrote:
Well, OK, the simplest solution is to keep the code mechanism as
is - but to use a new/different flag to
signal .indirect_symbols .. the sorting etc. doesn't really need
to change (just the bits using IS_MACHO_INDIRECT - which needs to
utilize a different flag) .. any suggestions about the Right Flag
(or a new one)?
The GAS end will need amending to use a SET_MACHO_INDIRECT .. but
that's also not too too bad...
So, here's a revised patch -
that uses (BSF_INDIRECT | BSF_SYNTHETIC) as the 'signal' from gas -
> bfd that the symbol is a mach_o .indirect_symbol
these symbols are also unnamed (could be used as a third key if
there is a meaning - can't think of one tonight - to (BSF_INDIRECT
I think we should really moving .indirect_symbols out of the symtab
for the following reasons:
1) there is no natural flags for them (BSF_INDIRECT | BSF_SYNTHETIC
is not fully correct)
2) they are anonymous (so it doesn't make sense to create a symbol
3) they aren't physically in the symtab
4) they're values are well defined.
5) there is a symmetry violation: when we read a mach-o file, we
don't create symbol for .indirect_symbol, but we will need symbols
to create .indirect_symbol. This will lead to trouble for objcopy
If you don't agree, please argue!
Those seem good reasons to me too.
So .. what about a new obstack for these in obj-macho.c?
and, I suppose, a private interface for passing them to BFD.
I'll repost the symbol quals patch if you like - since there's quite a
lot to remove (or are you OK with me removing and applying?)
+ name = input_line_pointer;
+ c = get_symbol_end ();
+ symbolP = symbol_find_or_make (name);
+ err = obj_mach_o_set_symbol_qualifier (symbolP, ntype);
+ *input_line_pointer = c;
+ if (err)
Do we need to break in case of error ?
... I'm not a fan of a flurry of errors for one typo ..
(but I suppose we should also do an 'ignore_rest_of_Line' as well)
I'll remove it for now, and we can see how that works out.
thanks for reviewing!