This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: copy_private_bfd_data in bfd/elf.c question
On Sun, Jun 23, 2002 at 02:35:52PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 22, 2002 at 09:23:10PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > Alan Modra <amodra@bigpond.net.au> writes:
> >
> > |> On Fri, Jun 21, 2002 at 06:28:10PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > |> > Steve Ellcey <sje@cup.hp.com> writes:
> > |> >
> > |> > |> > How about posting before/after output of readelf -S -l, so we can
> > |> > |> > have a clue as to what is going on.
> > |>
> > |> Note to Steve: -l not -I ! I was curious as to whether the segment
> > |> map changed. If it didn't then no matter.
> > |>
> > |> > |> [ 4] .hash HASH 04000620 000620 0000a4 00 A 0 0 8
> > |> [snip]
> > |> > |> [ 4] .hash HASH 04000620 00061c 0000a4 04 A 2 0 8
> > |> >
> > |> > This seems to be the culprit.
> > |>
> > |> sizeof_hash_entry == 4, so why does this matter?
> >
> > But align == 8, and addr and off don't agree in the low 3 bits.
>
> OK, it's different, but why does it matter? Is there something that
> says section alignment should affect file alignment? I'm more worried
> about Steve's report that objcopy resulted in a file that segv'd than
> in a file that was different in what seems to me a fairly
> insignificant way.
Duh. Fired that email off too quick. Of course it matters. File
loading is done by segments, not sections.
--
Alan Modra
IBM OzLabs - Linux Technology Centre