This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
RE: microblaze-elf - missing priority for the constructors
Nick, Ian, Michael,
Thank you all for your inputs. In eCos, I
based the microblaze linker script on the powerpc script and apply some
small modifications, so there might be some mistake in it.
followed Ian advice and removed the definition CTORS_SECTION_ASM_OP and
DTORS_SECTION_ASM_OP for microblaze when compiling GCC and everything
works fine now, the constructors table is build with the correct
priority attached to it.
This is great, thanks.
> From: email@example.com
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> CC: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: microblaze-elf - missing priority for the constructors
> Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 12:24:39 -0700
> nick clifton <email@example.com> writes:
> >> I cross-compiled GCC 4.6.3 and binutil 2.22 for microblaze
> >> and I came into a problem when trying an eCos RTOS based application.
> >> The constructors table is not sorted by priority, actually the priority
> >> seem to be gone. I have added this template in the linker script:
> > Strange - that should not be needed. The built-in microblaze linker
> > script already includes support for sorting constructors:
> It's a compiler problem, not a binutils problem at all. The compiler is
> not putting the priority in the .ctors section names.