This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.
| Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
|---|---|---|
| Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
| Other format: | [Raw text] | |
On 03 Mar 2015 19:54, Petar Jovanovic wrote:
> For x86-32, it will break. So, as it appears, the test is not portable.
> I can simplify it in the following way:
>
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/elf/tst-split-dynreloc.lds
> @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
> +SECTIONS
> +{
> + .rela.dyn : { *(.rela.dyn) }
> + .rel.dyn : { *(.rel.dyn) }
> + . += 1000;
> + .rela.plt : { *(.rela.plt) }
> + .rel.plt : { *(.rel.plt) }
> +}
> +INSERT BEFORE .init;
>
> This would also remove the need for __((section(".bar"))) in the test.
> What do you think?
that seems kind of dicey. i think doing it explicitly like you were before is
less risky ?
i thought we used linker scripts in glibc tests more, but i'm not actually
finding any. i'm not sure if we're trying to avoid them.
there's no way to produce a test that doesn't use linker scripts but still
triggers the problem you're fixing ?
-mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
| Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
|---|---|---|
| Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |