RE: microblaze-elf - missing priority for the constructors

[christophe coutand <ecos at hotmail dot co dot uk>]

Nick, Ian, Michael,

Thank you all for your inputs. In eCos, I 
based the microblaze linker script on the powerpc script and apply some 
small modifications, so there might be some mistake in it.

I 
followed Ian advice and removed the definition CTORS_SECTION_ASM_OP and 
DTORS_SECTION_ASM_OP for microblaze when compiling GCC and everything 
works fine now, the constructors table is build with the correct 
priority attached to it.

This is great, thanks.

Christophe

> From: iant@google.com
> To: nickc@redhat.com
> CC: ecos@hotmail.co.uk; binutils@sourceware.org
> Subject: Re: microblaze-elf - missing priority for the constructors
> Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 12:24:39 -0700
> 
> nick clifton <nickc@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> >> I cross-compiled GCC 4.6.3 and binutil 2.22 for microblaze
> >> and I came into a problem when trying an eCos RTOS based application.
> >> The constructors table is not sorted by priority, actually the priority
> >> seem to be gone. I have added this template in the linker script:
> >
> > Strange - that should not be needed.  The built-in microblaze linker
> > script already includes support for sorting constructors:
> 
> It's a compiler problem, not a binutils problem at all.  The compiler is
> not putting the priority in the .ctors section names.
> 
> Ian