the original script came from binutils and we simply adapted it.
I tried to simplify but I was unable to predict all the gcc created sections for various gcc flags (esp -O2), so I just put all that stuff back.

I'll try another pass at another time, when I can test all scenarios.
There is a huge degree of risk playing here, you can imagine how hard an issues from a dropped section would be hard to detect. Perhaps ld has options to warn when badness occurs.
I got lucky with this one.

On Jan 23, 2007, at 3:51 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:

[XEN][POWERPC] Linker script simplification broke optimized builds.

offending changeset was: changeset:   14126:c759c733f77d
So put it back and just update the symbols like a good little boy.

What, you're replacing one bug by a big bag of other
bugs?  Wouldn't it have been smarter to just fix the
bug you had?  Is there any bug report about the original
problem (I didn't see it)?

+SEARCH_DIR("=/usr/local/lib64"); SEARCH_DIR("=/lib64"); SEARCH_DIR ("=/usr/lib64"); SEARCH_DIR("=/usr/local/lib"); SEARCH_DIR("=/ lib"); SEARCH_DIR("=/usr/lib");

For example, this obviously is very very wrong.

I don't dare look at the rest of this patch (well I
did, but I don't know where to start commenting on
it ;-) )


Xen-ppc-devel mailing list

Xen-ppc-devel mailing list

Reply via email to