Re: [Patch] Unterminated .eh_frame when using --eh-frame-hdr

[Richard Henderson <rth at twiddle dot net>]

On Sat, Nov 13, 2004 at 08:29:01AM +0000, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > This is the part that Uli probably objects to more than anything
> > else -- why should any port not support .eh_frame_hdr?  It does
> > seem better to spend the time fixing the linker than doing ugly
> > things to the glibc configury.
> 
> I'm not following, sorry.  What do you mean by fixing the linker?

I mean that all targets that want to use glibc should generate
the .eh_frame_hdr section.  There should be no reason at all to
support the registry calls.

> You say "why should any port not support .eh_frame_hdr?".  I thought the
> no-.eh_frame_hdr case was there for compatibility with older toolchains.
> Are you saying that that case is no longer needed, and that we can
> always assume that the linker supports --eh-frame-hdr?

Yes.

> I.e. that we should combine the existing:
> 
>    libc_cv_gcc_dwarf2_unwind_info=no_registry_needed
>    libc_cv_gcc_dwarf2_unwind_info=yes
> 
> cases and patch soinit.c so that registry functions are only called
> if HAVE_DWARF2_UNWIND_INFO_STATIC?

Something like that.


r~