Hi Chris,
1.
>I don't see how you could do that since the symbol is associated with an
>existing place in memory. We could put the whole function in a
>different segment but that's not the kind of solution I was thinking of.
2.
> I was thinking that there might be an unused attribute that could
On Sun, 2002-12-22 at 04:55, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
> Didn't you suggest that anything in a library residing in /usr/lib or
> /usr/local/lib be excluded? That's not quite the same thing as what
> I was musing about. I was talking about marking individual symbols.
Ah, ok. oops.
(goes and
>>
> >What about putting such symbols in another named text section, so that
> >ld would ignore them ?
>
> I don't see how you could do that since the symbol is associated with an
> existing place in memory. We could put the whole function in a
> different segment
I had in mind something like thi
On Sat, Dec 21, 2002 at 06:48:09PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>On Sat, 2002-12-21 at 15:39, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>> Maybe the horse has left the barn already but it would have been nice
>> (tm) if these type of symbols were marked in some generic way so that
>> we wouldn't have to keep rem
On Sat, Dec 21, 2002 at 02:10:18PM +0100, Ralf Habacker wrote:
>>>Maybe the horse has left the barn already but it would have been nice
>>>(tm) if these type of symbols were marked in some generic way so that
>>>we wouldn't have to keep remembering to extend this table.
>>
>>I recall commenting on
Robert Collins wrote:
On Sat, 2002-12-21 at 15:39, Christopher Faylor wrote:
Maybe the horse has left the barn already but it would have been nice
(tm) if these type of symbols were marked in some generic way so that
we wouldn't have to keep remembering to extend this table.
I recall comment
> > Maybe the horse has left the barn already but it would have been nice
> > (tm) if these type of symbols were marked in some generic way so that
> > we wouldn't have to keep remembering to extend this table.
>
> I recall commenting on this aspect in a recent binutils thread in the
> cygwin lists
On Sat, 2002-12-21 at 15:39, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> Maybe the horse has left the barn already but it would have been nice
> (tm) if these type of symbols were marked in some generic way so that
> we wouldn't have to keep remembering to extend this table.
I recall commenting on this aspect in
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 11:23:36PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
>I don't think these symbols should be auto-exported by DLLs; they are
>internal, and are added (if the platform supports it) to every DLL and
>EXE. Since everybody has their own copy, there's no need for any DLL to
>export them.
>
I don't think these symbols should be auto-exported by DLLs; they are
internal, and are added (if the platform supports it) to every DLL and
EXE. Since everybody has their own copy, there's no need for any DLL to
export them.
Ralf?
2002-12-20 Charles Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* pe-dll.c
10 matches
Mail list logo
