Re: release soonish

[Mark Wielaard <mjw at redhat dot com>]

On Tue, 2012-01-31 at 15:20 -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > I am not sure we are making progress on the other (elflint) issue.
> > It seems to me that at least Alan Modra doesn't feel it is an issue
> > (see binutils list), but even though I disagree fixing it in binutils
> > ld is a bit of a pain. I tried and didn't get a good fix (it also goes
> > somewhat against the design in binutils ld that input sections and
> > output sections are in theory separate) and Richard Henderson's fix
> > has the disadvantage of turning all "missing" symbol sections into
> > SHN_ABS, which also isn't ideal. So, should we add another ld-gnu
> > quirk in elflint?
> 
> Alan is just clearly wrong about what should be acceptable.
> I'm not sure what is really wrong with Richard's fix.
> Can you give an example of a symbol it affects that is not wrong today?

No, and I guess it is more compliant than what is done now. It is just
that just turning those symbols into SHN_ABS basically gives up on them.
That might be the best we can do with the current ld design though :{

It is correct in the sense that we have no better choice, but wrong in
the sense that those symbol addresses really aren't "absolute".

But we should probably have this discussion on the binutils list if we
want to get a change there.

Cheers,

Mark