summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/patches/binutils/2.15.91.0.2/binutils-dup-sections.patch
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'patches/binutils/2.15.91.0.2/binutils-dup-sections.patch')
-rw-r--r--patches/binutils/2.15.91.0.2/binutils-dup-sections.patch68
1 files changed, 68 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/patches/binutils/2.15.91.0.2/binutils-dup-sections.patch b/patches/binutils/2.15.91.0.2/binutils-dup-sections.patch
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4e4934d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/patches/binutils/2.15.91.0.2/binutils-dup-sections.patch
@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+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
+
+[ rediffed against binutils-2.15.91.0.2, with some elbow grease ]
+
+2004-08-20 Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@debian.org>
+
+ * elflink.c (_bfd_elf_section_already_linked): Handle
+ SEC_LINK_DUPLICATES_SAME_CONTENTS.
+--- binutils-2.15.91.0.2/bfd/elflink.c.old 2004-07-27 21:36:08.000000000 -0700
++++ binutils-2.15.91.0.2/bfd/elflink.c 2004-08-26 06:38:07.000000000 -0700
+@@ -9359,6 +9359,35 @@
+ (_("%s: %s: warning: duplicate section `%s' has different size\n"),
+ bfd_archive_filename (abfd), name);
+ break;
++ case SEC_LINK_DUPLICATES_SAME_CONTENTS:
++ if (sec->size != l->sec->size)
++ (*_bfd_error_handler)
++ (_("%B: duplicate section `%A' has different size\n"),
++ bfd_archive_filename (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"),
++ bfd_archive_filename (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"),
++ bfd_archive_filename(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"),
++ bfd_archive_filename (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