From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11858 invoked by alias); 24 Oct 2011 13:59:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 11831 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Oct 2011 13:59:31 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,TW_FX X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:59:16 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.93]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1RIL3b-0001jx-T8 from Maciej_Rozycki@mentor.com ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 06:59:15 -0700 Received: from SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([137.202.0.104]) by svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 24 Oct 2011 06:59:15 -0700 Received: from [172.30.3.129] (137.202.0.76) by SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com (137.202.0.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.289.1; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 14:59:13 +0100 Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 14:02:00 -0000 From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" To: Richard Sandiford CC: , Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS/BFD: Fix assertions with SGI IRIX files In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <87vctdl4p1.fsf@firetop.home> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-10/txt/msg00632.txt.bz2 On Fri, 2 Sep 2011, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > > >> A patch to remove the assertions is pre-approved if you agree that's OK. > > > > > > OK, but are you positive that'll be no regression? > > > > This is binutils. You can never be positive that a patch won't break > > something. But the handling of SHN_MIPS_DATA and SHN_MIPS_TEXT isn't > > written in an SGI-specific way (just as the handling of the other > > SHN_MIPS_* sections isn't written in an SGI-specific way). I couldn't see, > > and still can't see, a reason why removing the assertions is wrong. > > OK, this is good enough a justification for me, thanks for investigating. > I meant any improper handling within BFD itself of course. I'll make that > change and push it at my earliest convenience. It may take a couple of > days. It's been a couple of days a couple of times now, but there you go. I have applied the change below now. 2011-10-24 Maciej W. Rozycki bfd/ * elfxx-mips.c (_bfd_mips_elf_symbol_processing): Remove assertions. Maciej binutils-mips-sgi-assert.diff Index: binutils-fsf-trunk-quilt/bfd/elfxx-mips.c =================================================================== --- binutils-fsf-trunk-quilt.orig/bfd/elfxx-mips.c 2011-10-24 14:48:39.655926020 +0100 +++ binutils-fsf-trunk-quilt/bfd/elfxx-mips.c 2011-10-24 14:49:14.745883975 +0100 @@ -6337,7 +6337,6 @@ _bfd_mips_elf_symbol_processing (bfd *ab { asection *section = bfd_get_section_by_name (abfd, ".text"); - BFD_ASSERT (SGI_COMPAT (abfd)); if (section != NULL) { asym->section = section; @@ -6353,7 +6352,6 @@ _bfd_mips_elf_symbol_processing (bfd *ab { asection *section = bfd_get_section_by_name (abfd, ".data"); - BFD_ASSERT (SGI_COMPAT (abfd)); if (section != NULL) { asym->section = section;