diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'patches/binutils/2.15.90.0.3/binutils-20040820-duplicates.patch')
| -rw-r--r-- | patches/binutils/2.15.90.0.3/binutils-20040820-duplicates.patch | 74 |
1 files changed, 74 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/patches/binutils/2.15.90.0.3/binutils-20040820-duplicates.patch b/patches/binutils/2.15.90.0.3/binutils-20040820-duplicates.patch new file mode 100644 index 0000000..03f6453 --- /dev/null +++ b/patches/binutils/2.15.90.0.3/binutils-20040820-duplicates.patch @@ -0,0 +1,74 @@ +See http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2004-08/msg00256.html + +Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 21:13:43 -0400 +From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org> +To: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com +Subject: Re: Handle SEC_LINK_DUPLICATES_SAME_CONTENTS for arm-linux +Message-ID: <20040821011342.GA30319@nevyn.them.org> +Mail-Followup-To: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com +References: <20040818145518.GA9774@nevyn.them.org> <20040819055040.GA11820@lucon.org> <20040819080034.GE21716@bubble.modra.org> <20040820173240.GA17678@nevyn.them.org> <20040821003737.GB16016@bubble.modra.org> +In-Reply-To: <20040821003737 dot GB16016 at bubble dot modra dot org> + +On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 10:07:38AM +0930, Alan Modra wrote: +> On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 01:32:40PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: +> > Thanks. How's this? +> +> As you might have guessed from my rather slack review of your previous +> patch, I trust you enough to give the OK without proper review. But +> since you asked... :) + +Checked in as so. + +-- +Daniel Jacobowitz + +2004-08-20 Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@debian.org> + + * elflink.c (_bfd_elf_section_already_linked): Handle + SEC_LINK_DUPLICATES_SAME_CONTENTS. + +Index: elflink.c +=================================================================== +RCS file: /big/fsf/rsync/src-cvs/src/bfd/elflink.c,v +retrieving revision 1.97 +diff -u -p -r1.97 elflink.c +--- binutils/bfd/elflink.c 18 Aug 2004 02:45:42 -0000 1.97 ++++ binutils/bfd/elflink.c 21 Aug 2004 00:59:08 -0000 +@@ -9366,6 +9366,36 @@ _bfd_elf_section_already_linked (bfd *ab + (_("%B: duplicate section `%A' has different size\n"), + abfd, sec); + break; ++ ++ case SEC_LINK_DUPLICATES_SAME_CONTENTS: ++ if (sec->size != l->sec->size) ++ (*_bfd_error_handler) ++ (_("%B: duplicate section `%A' has different size\n"), ++ abfd, sec); ++ else if (sec->size != 0) ++ { ++ bfd_byte *sec_contents, *l_sec_contents; ++ ++ if (!bfd_malloc_and_get_section (abfd, sec, &sec_contents)) ++ (*_bfd_error_handler) ++ (_("%B: warning: could not read contents of section `%A'\n"), ++ abfd, sec); ++ else if (!bfd_malloc_and_get_section (l->sec->owner, l->sec, ++ &l_sec_contents)) ++ (*_bfd_error_handler) ++ (_("%B: warning: could not read contents of section `%A'\n"), ++ l->sec->owner, l->sec); ++ else if (memcmp (sec_contents, l_sec_contents, sec->size) != 0) ++ (*_bfd_error_handler) ++ (_("%B: warning: duplicate section `%A' has different contents\n"), ++ abfd, sec); ++ ++ if (sec_contents) ++ free (sec_contents); ++ if (l_sec_contents) ++ free (l_sec_contents); ++ } ++ break; + } + + /* Set the output_section field so that lang_add_section + |