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, 0 insertions, 74 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 deleted file mode 100644 index 03f6453..0000000 --- a/patches/binutils/2.15.90.0.3/binutils-20040820-duplicates.patch +++ /dev/null @@ -1,74 +0,0 @@ -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 - |