This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
RE: [PATCH] Record whether an object attribute is actually set
- From: Matthew Fortune <Matthew dot Fortune at imgtec dot com>
- To: Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>
- Cc: "binutils at sourceware dot org" <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 20:30:25 +0000
- 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> <87d2fanb8b dot fsf at talisman dot default>
Richard Sandiford <email@example.com> writes:
> Richard Sandiford <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > Sorry the slow reply to this.
> > Alan Modra <email@example.com> 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,
> >> somehow?
> > 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.
At least it didn't turn into complete gibberish which I'm sure I'll
manage one day!
Sorry for not getting back to you sooner, I wanted to run it with the FPXX
tests and had a half broken testsuite as I was working on it. This looks
good. I don't think there was much value in the end in the flag being
stored directly in the attributes as its meaning would have been fuzzy at