From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4226 invoked by alias); 24 Nov 2002 17:46:46 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 4193 invoked from network); 24 Nov 2002 17:46:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (63.201.54.26) by sources.redhat.com with QMTP; 24 Nov 2002 17:46:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 5211 invoked by uid 10); 24 Nov 2002 17:46:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 25532 invoked by uid 500); 24 Nov 2002 17:47:53 -0000 Mail-Followup-To: binutils@sources.redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, klee@apple.com To: Klee Dienes Cc: binutils@sources.redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Add stabs entries for coalesced symbols. References: From: Ian Lance Taylor Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 09:46:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00588.txt.bz2 Klee Dienes writes: > On Tuesday, November 19, 2002, at 01:23 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > > Coalesced symbols look quite similar to COMDAT sections (e.g., > > SEC_LINK_DUPLICATES_DISCARD). They're called coalesced *symbols*, but > > in BFD terminology they are really *sections*. It would be nice if > > you mentioned this in your new documentation. Thanks. > > My understanding is that coalesced symbols are similar to, but not > quite the same as COMDAT sections. In our implementation, coalesced > symbols are placed into sections marked with the S_COALESCED flag, > each of which may contain any number of coalesced symbols. I've tried > to make the documentation reflect this a bit better (speaking of > which, I should mention that these docs are extensively plagiarized > from docs written by another engineer at Apple; I'm just adapting them > as best I can from the release notes for use in the stabs document). > > Are you saying that our BFD Mach-O layer should be mapping each symbol > in a Mach-O coalesced section into a separate BFD section flagged with > SEC_LINK_DUPLICATES_DISCARD? Unfortunately, we haven't yet extended > our BFD layer to anything beyond that needed to support GDB and > objdump/objcopy/etc., but it would be nice to know how to proceed for > future reference. I only intended to say that it would be nice if your documentation mentioned COMDAT sections and SEC_LINK_DUPLICATES_DISCARD in connection with coalesced symbols. They are very similar (I do understand the distinction you mention), and I believe it will help people understand the documentation. Ian