Am 31.10.2011 um 00:18 schrieb Peter Dyballa:

>       unexec: unrecognized section name in __DATA segment 

The routines in erc/unexmacosx.c report about the built temacs executable:

        2 LC_SEGMENT            736 __DATA             0x1b3000 0x1dc000
                                   __dyld             0x1b3000     0x1c
                                   __nl_symbol_ptr    0x1b301c    0xaec
                                   __la_symbol_ptr    0x1b3b08    0xbc8
                                   __const            0x1b46d0   0x1438
                                   __data             0x1b5b10 0x195182
                                   __static_data      0x34ac92      0x3
                                   __pu_bss2          0x34ac98   0x5418
                                   __pu_bss4          0x3500b0   0x8634
                                   __bss2             0x3586e4  0x2faec
                                   __bss4             0x3881d0   0x6564

The failure happens when parts of temacs are copied into emacs:

        --- Load Commands written to Output File ---
        Writing segment __PAGEZERO       @        0 (       0/  0x1000 @        
  0)
        Writing segment __TEXT           @        0 (0x1b2000/0x1b2000 @     
0x1000)
        Writing segment __DATA           @ 0x1b2000 (0x1dc000/0x1dc000 @   
0x1b3000)
                section __dyld           at 0x1b2000 - 0x1b201c (sz:     0x1c)
                section __nl_symbol_ptr  at 0x1b201c - 0x1b2b08 (sz:    0xaec)
                section __la_symbol_ptr  at 0x1b2b08 - 0x1b36d0 (sz:    0xbc8)
                section __const          at 0x1b36d0 - 0x1b4b08 (sz:   0x1438)
                section __data           at 0x1b4b10 - 0x349c92 (sz: 0x195182)
        unexec: unrecognized section name in __DATA segment

So it's presumingly the unconventional __static_data section name that produces 
the premature end of dumping. The GCC 4.6.1 versions from Fink and MacPorts 
both produce the same sections in the __DATA segment. The four other sections 
names following __static_data seem to be suspicious as well, at least new. GCC 
version 4.4 or 4.5 were only producing __bss sections, without without pre- or 
postfix and no __static_data. Is this something I should be worried about?

--
Greetings

  Pete

"By filing this bug report you have challenged the honor of my family. Prepare 
to die!"


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RSA® Conference 2012
Save $700 by Nov 18
Register now
http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsa-sfdev2dev1
_______________________________________________
Fink-users mailing list
[email protected]
List archive:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.os.macosx.fink.user
Subscription management:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-users

Reply via email to