https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19104
--- Comment #4 from Ronald Hoogenboom <rhoogenboom at irdeto dot com> --- (In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #3) > How about this: > > If the symbol already exists and the symbol that is being added has the > warning flag set, then it is treated as the addition of a warning, and it is > inserted before the real symbol. > Otherwise if the new version of the symbol has the same flags as the > current version then the addition is ignored. > Otherwise an error message is generated. > I am not really sure what you mean here. As far as I understand, a warning symbol will print a warning in the linker when the following symbol is used. The text in the warning is the name of the symbol and the value is irrelevant. I was more thinking about adding another flag (which is not a real symbol flag), like 'before=<symbol>'. This will surely complicate the 'parse_symflags' function, but at least not trigger symbol lookup for all --add-symbol, only when this flag is given. Or maybe another suffix like '@<symbol>' to specify before which other symbol the symbol (whether warning or not) needs to be inserted. AH, and maybe there needs to be 'escapes' in case the user wants to specify symbols containing ':' or ',' or '@'... > I could not think of a simple way to insert indirect symbols for already > existing symbols, so maybe we should ignore this possibility for now ? > I would prefer to leave the usefulness of the added symbol up to the user of the option. If he wants to create a broken object, he can keep the pieces! > Cheers > Nick Thanks for your response, Ronald. -- 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
