From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H . J . Lu" To: Kevin Buettner , binutils@sourceware.cygnus.com Cc: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH RFA] partial-stab.h patch amendment Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 10:02:00 -0000 Message-id: <20010907100223.A21526@lucon.org> References: <1010905224331.ZM6026@ocotillo.lan> <1010906205537.ZM8109@ocotillo.lan> <1010906232048.ZM8395@ocotillo.lan> <20010906230028.A9702@lucon.org> <1010907165329.ZM10390@ocotillo.lan> X-SW-Source: 2001-09/msg00090.html On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 09:53:29AM -0700, Kevin Buettner wrote: > > > > Is there a way to remove a stabs entry in this case? > > In my opinion, it'd be better for some other part of the toolchain > (i.e. not GDB) to remove the appropriate stabs entries when a symbol I meent to ask if there was a way to remove a stabs entry by the linker. > is converted from being weak defined to (weak) undefined. (Is there > any difference between ``undefined'' and ``weak undefined''?) I don't think so. We are trying to find out if it is a linker bug. But I don't have access to Solaris to verify it myself. I'd like to know what the linker should do for a weak definition when 1. There is a strong definition in another relocatable file before it. 2. There is a strong definition in another relocatable file after it. 3. There is a strong definition in a DSO before it. 4. There is a strong definition in a DSO after it. > > > > I tried your patch on gdb 5.1. It works for me. Can we have it in > > gdb 5.1? > > Good question. I think it should go in, but I'm not the keeper of the > branch. > > Andrew, what do you say? Please. I really appreciate it. Thanks. H.J.