This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com 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: got and plt section attributes


On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 11:54:40PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> This fixes warnings about "setting incorrect section attributes for
> .got" when compiling gcc/config/rs6000/eabi-ci.asm.
> 
> 	 * elf.c (special_sections): Set attributes for .got and .plt.
> 
> Index: bfd/elf.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/elf.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.193
> diff -u -p -r1.193 elf.c
> --- bfd/elf.c	26 Jul 2003 01:06:27 -0000	1.193
> +++ bfd/elf.c	28 Jul 2003 14:10:11 -0000
> @@ -2192,13 +2192,13 @@ static struct bfd_elf_special_section co
>    { ".dynsym",		0,	NULL,	0,
>      SHT_DYNSYM,		SHF_ALLOC },
>    { ".got",		0,	NULL,	0,
> -    SHT_PROGBITS,	0 },
> +    SHT_PROGBITS,	SHF_ALLOC + SHF_WRITE },
>    { ".hash",		0,	NULL,	0,
>      SHT_HASH,		SHF_ALLOC },
>    { ".interp",		0,	NULL,	0,
>      SHT_PROGBITS,	0 },
>    { ".plt",		0,	NULL,	0,
> -    SHT_PROGBITS,	0 },
> +    SHT_PROGBITS,	SHF_ALLOC + SHF_EXECINSTR },

.plt is SHF_ALLOC + SHF_WRITE + SHF_EXECINSTR on about half of ELF arches I
think (and SHT_NOBITS on ppc/ppc64).
Do we really expect half of the arches to define their own special_section
table with .plt section, or shouldn't backends inform ELF generic code
whether they use .got.plt or not?

	Jakub


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