https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22967
--- Comment #14 from Martin Liska ---
(In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #13)
> Hi Martin,
>
> I have gone ahead and applied the full patch. This was because
> a) I am lazy and b) I have already tested it. Having a new option
>
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22967
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22967
--- Comment #12 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The master branch has been updated by Nick Clifton :
https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=e6f6aa8d184c38230d9acd91a49aa0cbe3f37e42
commit
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22967
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liska ---
(In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #10)
> (In reply to Martin Liska from comment #9)
>
> > Can't we just change behavior and properly mentioned that in release notes?
>
> I think that that would be
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22967
--- Comment #10 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Martin Liska from comment #9)
> Can't we just change behavior and properly mentioned that in release notes?
I think that that would be a bad idea. I suspect that there are scripts
out
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22967
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liska ---
Sorry for the slow response.
To be honest I dislike the addition of a new configure option and a new
argument.
Can't we just change behavior and properly mentioned that in release notes?
--
You are
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22967
--- Comment #8 from Nick Clifton ---
Created attachment 12942
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12942=edit
Proposed patch
Hi Martin,
Please could you try out this patch and let me know what you think.
The patch
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22967
--- Comment #7 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Martin Liska from comment #6)
> @Nick: May I please remind you this issue?
Doh! Sorry - really dropped the ball on this one.
Looking into it now.
Cheers
Nick
--
You are receiving this
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22967
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liska ---
@Nick: May I please remind you this issue?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22967
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from Nick
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22967
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liska ---
I probably incline to 3).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
bug-binutils mailing list
bug-binutils@gnu.org
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22967
--- Comment #3 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Martin,
Thanks.
Now the question is what letter should we use for global ifunc symbols ?
I see three options:
1. Use 'I' for global ifunc symbols and another character (eg '>') for
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22967
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liska ---
(In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #1)
> Hi Martin,
>
> > nm uses 'i' letter for GNU IFUNC symbols and it would be good to use
> > different letters for local and global ones. Similar what's done with
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22967
Martin Liska changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--
You are receiving
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22967
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
15 matches
Mail list logo
