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: [gold, strip] Question about the changed offset when stripping

If you think that it is ok, I'll take a deeper look at my problem with
debugging (bfd linked is ok, gold linked is not), may be it is a
gdb<->gdbserver issue.

Still, it looks a bit strange that strip did the job that it was not
asked for: erasing the padding between got.plt and bss.

I also do not understand the reasons behind gold inserting this
padding in the first place; if strip is allowed with no further
consequences to delete the padding, it looks like it is a good idea
for gold to just stop inserting it to save a few bits (and plus there
is the compatibility between bfd and gold, because it seems that bfd
does not insert it) .


2013/12/3 Alan Modra <>:
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 02:09:53PM -0800, Cary Coutant wrote:
>> >>  As you can see the offset of .bss is changed now (it is equal now to
>> >> the offset of got.plt+size of gol.plt).
>> >> Is it criminal? I don't see anything wrong with gold inserting a
>> >> padding between .got.plt and .bss, why strip do not honor it?
>> >
>> > strip should not be doing this.  Please post the pre-stripped binary,
>> > so someone can take a look, or better, open a bug report.
>> It looks like only the file offset changed, and the file offset is
>> irrelevant for a BSS section. I don't think strip is doing any harm
>> here.
> Oh right.  I misread the readelf fields, for some reason thinking that
> offset came first.
> --
> Alan Modra
> Australia Development Lab, IBM

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