[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Bug ld/6468] ld: --export-dynamic fails if no undefined symbols
From: |
jreiser at BitWagon dot com |
Subject: |
[Bug ld/6468] ld: --export-dynamic fails if no undefined symbols |
Date: |
29 Apr 2008 20:46:30 -0000 |
------- Additional Comments From jreiser at BitWagon dot com 2008-04-29 20:46
-------
Subject: Re: ld: --export-dynamic fails if no undefined symbols
drow at false dot org wrote:
> ------- Additional Comments From drow at false dot org 2008-04-29 19:48
> -------
> Subject: Re: ld: --export-dynamic fails if no undefined
> symbols
>
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 06:54:37PM -0000, jreiser at BitWagon dot com wrote:
>
>>[Did I cover everything that should be changd? ;-)]
> Well, you'd also need a PT_INTERP. Probably more.
The executable has no undefined symbols (.e_entry receives control),
and in particular it needs no PT_INTERP.
>>What was the specific objection to --force-dynamic on non-VxWorks?
> I don't remember, but I'm sure you can find it in the list archives.
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2006-03/msg00020.html
"Add --force-dynamic flag to VxWorks targets"
is the software itself, but I could find no indication of objections
by non-VxWorks targets. I saw just 16 matches to a search for
"--force-dynamic" [_with_ quotation marks: try not to ignore punctuation]
and none had any discussion about non-VxWorks targets, or including or
excluding the ability to force a Dynamic section.
I'd like to separate mechanism from policy, so that non-traditional uses
can ask for, and get, logical features without regard to who else has
used or not used them in the past.
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6468
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.