diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'sources/binutils/2.15.91.0.2/701-binutils-dup-sections.patch')
| -rw-r--r-- | sources/binutils/2.15.91.0.2/701-binutils-dup-sections.patch | 68 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 68 deletions
diff --git a/sources/binutils/2.15.91.0.2/701-binutils-dup-sections.patch b/sources/binutils/2.15.91.0.2/701-binutils-dup-sections.patch deleted file mode 100644 index 4e4934d8c..000000000 --- a/sources/binutils/2.15.91.0.2/701-binutils-dup-sections.patch +++ /dev/null @@ -1,68 +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 - -[ 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 |