http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15025
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de 2013-01-21 10:29:57 UTC --- amodra at gmail dot com <sourceware-bugzi...@sourceware.org> wrote: >http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15025 > >Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com> changed: > > What |Removed |Added >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > CC| |amodra at gmail dot com > >--- Comment #5 from Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com> 2013-01-19 >00:17:24 UTC --- >So it's the 0 terminators from sofini.c that break things when a new >linker >puts them into .init_array/.fini_array? Just curious, I'd like to be >sure I >understand what is going on here. See >http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2011-01/msg00159.html Yes, that's correct. >In regard to "minus crtfiles??!!!", this is exactly why those files do >not have >their .ctor/.dtor sections placed into .init_array/.fini_array. >.init_array >and .fini_array don't use sentinels and obviously you don't want to try >to >execute a function at 0 or -1. Ok. So to repeat my question. Why merge non-priority .ctor into .init_array at all? What's the benefit? Why have a configure check for .init_array when the only situation we have to do sth for correctness is when both Prioritized .ctor and .init_array appear, and thus obviously .init_array support can be assumed? Thus, leave .ctor alone and figure out some other magic to detect if .init_array.n is present, and only then merge in .ctor.n Richard. -- Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
