This is the mail archive of the binutils@sourceware.org mailing list for the binutils 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]

Re: [RFC]: .eh_frame section in mingw32 executables


Joel Brobecker wrote:
>>> Any reason why it would be bad to have that data in its own section
>>> rather than being merged in .rdata?
>> I can't think of anything off the top of my head.  Has this patch been in
>> production use anywhere for a while?
> 
> Not as far as we know. We're just about to enable it internally
> at AdaCore, and we were wondering if someone knew of a reason
> not to... I'm pretty sure we'll be happy to keep this as an internal
> patch while we collect more experience with it.

  No, I think that would be overkill; I was just hoping that you'd be able to
tell me that (e.g.) it had been through not just a binutils build-and-test
cycle but a gcc or gdb one as well.  But (and this is the point where older
maintainers might want to tell me something I don't know about policy, but I
don't think I'm being controversial) HEAD is by definition unstable, and if
there's something that we all can't see a problem with and only /might/ be
problematic in some kind of unanticipated corner-case, I think it's reasonable
to apply it and fix the bugs afterwards /if/ they appear.

  So, given a ChangeLog entry, extending the patch to make the equivalent
change to pe.sc as it does to pep.sc, and regression testing on cyg, ming and
ming64, it's OK by me.

    cheers,
      DaveK


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]