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: [gold, strip] Question about the changed offset when stripping


On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 2:28 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Cary Coutant <ccoutant@google.com> wrote:
>>> I did some investigation.  I think gold is wrong.  I
>>> opened:
>>>
>>> https://www.sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16321
>>> https://www.sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16320
>>
>> If, by "wrong", you mean "different from Gnu ld", then sure. But I
>> don't think it's doing anything wrong in either case. The file offset
>> for a BSS section is completely meaningless, so whether we plug in the
>> next available value before or after aligning it is irrelevant. For
>
> That is true.  It makes no difference if 0 or -1 is used.
>
>> the TLS segment, including the padding in memsz but not in filesz is
>> also irrelevant, and should be harmless, although I'll admit that it
>
> It may be harmless, but it is waste of address space.
>
>> might be worth fixing that just for consistency's sake.
>>
>> In my opinion, the real problems are: (a) strip basically re-draws the
>> file, and since it uses the same underlying framework as Gnu ld, it
>> produces the same output that Gnu ld would have produced; and (b) GDB
>
> Not always.  I personally fixed a couple strip bugs :-(.

I opened:

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16323

strip changes PL_LOAD segment generated by gold.


-- 
H.J.


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