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: PATCH: Re: EH frame optimization bug


On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 07:20:09AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 10:36:42PM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 09:57:31PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Something similar came up a few months ago but I can't find the reference
> > > > > > now.  What's the right thing to do here?  My instinct says, grow the last
> > > > > > FDE before the padding, but I have no idea how to do that.  Is the alignment
> > > > > > of a .eh_frame section mandated?
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > How about this patch?
> > > 
> > > It seems reasonable, but I'd have thought that it would be safer/more
> > > useful to ignore old_fill.
> > > 
> > 
> > Like this?
> 
> Well, the primary thing is that for .eh_frame (as opposed to .debug_frame)
> unless some FDE/CIE uses somewhere DW_EH_PE_aligned encoding or unless
> GCC 2.x style FDE/CIEs are present I don't see why there should be any
> padding in the .eh_frame section.
> So IMHO if ld detects there are no such things in the .eh_frame section
> (or even better just that the following CIE/FDE doesn't really need to be
> aligned), it should remove any padding.
> 

The problem is the section alignment. It is what your patch:

http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2003-06/msg00643.html

tried to fix. I don't think .eh_frame should get any special treatment.


H.J.


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