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: [PATCH] ld/emulparams/ Skip OTHER_BSS_SECTIONS for "-r" option.

On 3/24/15 11:23, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 10:59:05AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
>> On 3/24/15 08:23, Alan Modra wrote:
>>> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 11:20:04PM +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
>>>>         * emulparams/ Skip OTHER_BSS_SECTIONS for "-r"
>>>>         option.
>>> This looks OK, except
>>>> +# For ld -r, skip OTHER_BSS_SECTIONS, or will cause multiple definition.
>>>> +if [ "x${LD_FLAG}" != "xr" ]; then
>>> this should test $RELOCATING instead of $LD_FLAG.
>> OK, thanks. I guess your meaning is that we need use ${RELOCATING-0}
>> instead of "x${LD_FLAG}" != "xr". If it is incorrect, please let me
>> know (the related diff may like below).
> No, that won't work.  I meant something like
> if test -n "$RELOCATING"; then

After searched all ${RELOCATING} with ld source code, all are used as

In, it always use ${RELOCATING-0}, and I tested the
diff with ${RELOCATING-0}, it would not generate OTHER_BSS_SECTIONS for
-r and -u, but would generated OTHER_BSS_SECTIONS in normal using.

So for me, I guess, ${RELOCATION-0} is OK, too.

Chen Gang

Open, share, and attitude like air, water, and life which God blessed

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