Re: --enable-auto-import extension

[egor duda <deo at logos-m dot ru>]

Hi!

Thursday, 15 August, 2002 Christopher Faylor cgf@redhat.com wrote:

CF> What's the status of this change?  I'd vote for including it in ld
CF> iff it is only invoked when the option is specifically used.  Then
CF> we can add the appropriate changes to cygwin, make a new release, and
CF> then make a binutils release as well.

I've snailed a copyright assignment by air mail a couple of weeks ago,
but probably it haven't been delivered yet.

I think now we can do the following:

>>should be added after new binutils package (in which ld exports
>>___RUNTIME_PSEUDO_RELOC_LIST__ and ___RUNTIME_PSEUDO_RELOC_LIST_END__)
>>is released.
>>Or we can only export them in pe.sc for now, and go ahead with cygwin
>>(and mingw, if anybody's interested) change. It'd just have no effect
>>until full ld patch is applied.

it's trivial (i hope) change to binutils and i already have an assignment
with cygwin.

In a discussion in cygwin-patches@ you proposed to move call to
_pei386_runtime_relocator from crt0.o to cygwin1.dll. I did it, but
haven't tested it yet in case when pseudo-relocs are present in dll,
not exe file.

CF> On Thu, Jul 04, 2002 at 11:19:27AM +0400, egor duda wrote:
>>Wednesday, 03 July, 2002 Charles Wilson cwilson@ece.gatech.edu wrote:
>>
>>CW> The new version looks good to me; I built and ran your test without
>>CW> problems.  I do have a suggestion for later, when 
>>CW> --enable-runtime-pseudo-reloc is made the default: in pe-dll.c (around 
>>CW> line 2209) change
>>
>>CW> if (pe_dll_extra_pe_debug)
>>CW>    printf ("creating runtime pseudo-reloc entry for %s (addend=%d)\n",
>>CW>       fixup_name, addend);
>>
>>CW> to
>>
>>CW> if (link_info.pei386_runtime_pseudo_reloc == -1)
>>CW>    info_msg (_("creating runtime pseudo-reloc entry for %s (addend=%d)\n"),
>>CW>       fixup_name, addend);
>>
>>CW> So that if pseudo_reloc is implicitly enabled, print messages for each 
>>CW> psuedo-reloc entry (but not all that other pe_dll_extra_pe_debug stuff). 
>>CW>   It's not a warning, but its info the user probably needs to know if he 
>>CW> didn't explicitly say "--enable-runtime-pseudo-reloc".
>>
>>Agreed.
>>
>>CW> The business with fork() and -DNO_RUNTIME_PSEUDO_RELOC_SUPPORT stuff in
>>CW> your example is a bit confusing -- do you have some pending
>>CW> patches to cygwin1.dll? 
>>
>>Yes, i've sent them yesterday to cygwin-patches@. Of course, they
>>should be added after new binutils package (in which ld exports
>>___RUNTIME_PSEUDO_RELOC_LIST__ and ___RUNTIME_PSEUDO_RELOC_LIST_END__)
>>is released.
>>
>>Or we can only export them in pe.sc for now, and go ahead with cygwin
>>(and mingw, if anybody's interested) change. It'd just have no effect
>>until full ld patch is applied.

Egor.            mailto:deo@logos-m.ru ICQ 5165414 FidoNet 2:5020/496.19