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: --gc-sections and -r

> On 02 Sep 2016, at 01:14, Alan Modra <> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 02:34:46PM +0200, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>> Alan,
>> on Thursday, 28 October 2010 you committed this patch:
>> v850-elf fails "--gc-sections -r without -e" because the v850 linker
>> script contains EXTERN().  We don't distinguish these from symbols
>> given with -u on the command line, but the intention was to require a
>> command line -u or -e with --gc-sections -r.  Like so.
>> However, the doc still contains:
>> This option can be set when doing a partial link (enabled with option
>> @samp{-r}).  In this case the root of symbols kept must be explicitly
>> specified either by an @samp{--entry} or @samp{--undefined} option or by
>> a @code{ENTRY} command in the linker script.
>> So there is a mismatch.
>> Is there any reason not to accept anymore ENTRY from linker script ?
>> (in particular from an explicit linker script).
> Hi Tristan.  Most likely I was on a mission to reduce testsuite fails
> and decided that the people who wrote the testcase really did intend
> that --gc-sections -r require -e.  Since you had a hand in writing
> that testcase, I guess you're telling me that assumption was wrong. :)
> If you want to revert the patch, I have no objection.

Thank you for the comment and the background.  I plan to propose a patch.


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