This is the mail archive of the 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: Avoid 64-bit Solaris/SPARC -gstabs link failures (PR ld/12152)

Eric Botcazou <> writes:

>> I'm just suggesting that we should not ignore a relocation overflow
>> simply so that a test for 64-bit STABS will pass rather than fail.  As
>> far as I can see, ignoring a relocation overflow could lead to silently
>> generating an invalid program.  It does not seem like a good choice to
>> introduce the possibility of silently generating an invalid program in
>> order to let a test pass, particularly so given that the test is for a
>> feature that doesn't work anyhow.
> But this choice was made more than a decade ago (not by me).  What's the point 
> in reversing it in 2012, where nobody should be caring about STABS for long?
> SPARC or Solaris guys have other things to do than dealing with gratuitous 
> incompatible changes.  And the program is not invalid, just the debug info.

Sorry, I looked at the code again and I missed that it actually tests
the section name.  That is really ugly.  Never mind.


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