This is the mail archive of the binutils@sourceware.org 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: Special ELF section flags vs. linker-specified bfd flags


"H. J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org> writes:
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 11:15:32AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Index: bfd/elf.c
>> ===================================================================
>> RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/elf.c,v
>> retrieving revision 1.359
>> diff -u -p -r1.359 elf.c
>> --- bfd/elf.c	15 Oct 2006 14:22:13 -0000	1.359
>> +++ bfd/elf.c	18 Oct 2006 10:10:31 -0000
>> @@ -5954,7 +5954,10 @@ _bfd_elf_init_private_section_data (bfd 
>>       section flags.  */
>>    if (osec->flags == isec->flags
>>        || (osec->flags == 0 && elf_section_type (osec) == SHT_NULL))
>> -    elf_section_type (osec) = elf_section_type (isec);
>> +    {
>> +      elf_section_type (osec) = elf_section_type (isec);
>> +      elf_section_flags (osec) = elf_section_flags (isec);
>> +    }
>
> I don't think we need to check elf_section_type (osec) == SHT_NULL.
> If elf_section_type (osec) != SHT_NULL, we may have a problem
> elsewhere.

I don't see how that's related to my patch though.  I'd rather just
change this one thing.  I don't object to someone changing the condition
too, but I think it should be done separately.

Richard


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