Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 15:00:41 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org> To: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: avoid producing empty set_pcpu section [Was: elf obj load: skip zero-sized sections early] Message-ID: <4C3EF869.9070804@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20100715113950.GT2381@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> References: <4C246CD0.3020606@freebsd.org> <20100702082754.S14969@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> <4C320E6E.4040007@freebsd.org> <20100705171155.K14969@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> <4C321409.2070500@freebsd.org> <4C343C68.8010302@freebsd.org> <4C36FB32.30901@freebsd.org> <4C39B0E6.3090400@freebsd.org> <4C39B7DE.3030100@freebsd.org> <4C3EF026.7090706@freebsd.org> <20100715113950.GT2381@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 15/07/2010 14:39 Kostik Belousov said the following: > > Is new behaviour completely identical to the behaviour of the newer > ld ? No, it's not completely identical. __start_SECNAME placement would be identical, but our ld would still assign the symbol while latest upstream binutils PROVIDES it. > Even if yes, I think that such changes make potential import of > newer binutils harder. How? -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4C3EF869.9070804>