This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] Record whether an object attribute is actually set
- From: Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>
- To: Matthew Fortune <Matthew dot Fortune at imgtec dot com>
- Cc: "binutils\ at sourceware dot org" <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 20:22:12 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Record whether an object attribute is actually set
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <6D39441BF12EF246A7ABCE6654B0235352C2DA at LEMAIL01 dot le dot imgtec dot org> <20140516082705 dot GV5162 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org> <87wqdkyavu dot fsf at talisman dot default>
Richard Sandiford <email@example.com> writes:
> Sorry the slow reply to this.
> Alan Modra <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 11:22:13PM +0000, Matthew Fortune wrote:
>>> --- a/bfd/elf-bfd.h
>>> +++ b/bfd/elf-bfd.h
>>> @@ -1472,6 +1472,7 @@ typedef struct obj_attribute
>>> int type;
>>> unsigned int i;
>>> char *s;
>>> + bfd_boolean is_set;
>>> } obj_attribute;
>> Note that, because someone added a 2 * 71 array of this struct to
>> elf_obj_data, all ELF object BFDs get hit by any increase here,
>> whether the files use attributes or not. Can you do without the flag,
> Yeah, I was more thinking about having a flag in the assembler,
> since I think we want to know whether the attribute has been set
> by an explicit .gnu_attribute in the code, rather than through
> some implicit setting.
> How about the attached look?
Er, that's what happens you change your mind between "how does the
attached look" and "how about the attached" half-way through the sentence.