This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [Patch] Unterminated .eh_frame when using --eh-frame-hdr
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- To: Ulrich Drepper <drepper at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Richard Henderson <rth at twiddle dot net>,Richard Sandiford <rsandifo at redhat dot com>,libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 15:27:48 -0400
- Subject: Re: [Patch] Unterminated .eh_frame when using --eh-frame-hdr
- References: <wvn1xf4za13.fsf@talisman.cambridge.redhat.com> <418F87FF.8020208@redhat.com> <20041111234914.GA6098@twiddle.net> <wvn1xezo11m.fsf@talisman.cambridge.redhat.com> <20041112212117.GA10470@twiddle.net> <87ekiykv8y.fsf@redhat.com> <20041113215042.GA15186@twiddle.net> <87y8gs2zpx.fsf@redhat.com> <20041123224007.GA18097@twiddle.net> <41A3BD1D.9000007@redhat.com>
On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 02:43:41PM -0800, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> Richard Henderson wrote:
>
> > Patch looks good to me and to diffstat (224 deletions, 0 additions).
> > Uli, what do you think?
>
> I don't have any insight into what compilers/runtimes this excludes.
> Since these tests should not disturb anything I'm inclined to leave it
> in until we have the next bigger gcc requirement bump.
Since then, we've had a gcc version bump: we now require TLS to build
glibc. So should this patch be committed now?
Here's the patch:
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-alpha/2004-11/msg00165.html
I'm not sure how this affects ports which don't use dwarf2. The only
one I care about at the moment is ARM. But that's off in the ports
repository, and I'll take care of any fallout afterwards. Probably we
should only include the .eh_frame begin/end if GCC uses the .eh_frame
section.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC