1.1 --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
1.2 +++ b/patches/binutils/2.15.90.0.3/binutils-20040820-duplicates.patch Mon May 14 19:59:41 2007 +0000
1.3 @@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
1.4 +See http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2004-08/msg00256.html
1.5 +
1.6 +Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 21:13:43 -0400
1.7 +From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
1.8 +To: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
1.9 +Subject: Re: Handle SEC_LINK_DUPLICATES_SAME_CONTENTS for arm-linux
1.10 +Message-ID: <20040821011342.GA30319@nevyn.them.org>
1.11 +Mail-Followup-To: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
1.12 +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>
1.13 +In-Reply-To: <20040821003737 dot GB16016 at bubble dot modra dot org>
1.14 +
1.15 +On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 10:07:38AM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
1.16 +> On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 01:32:40PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
1.17 +> > Thanks. How's this?
1.18 +>
1.19 +> As you might have guessed from my rather slack review of your previous
1.20 +> patch, I trust you enough to give the OK without proper review. But
1.21 +> since you asked... :)
1.22 +
1.23 +Checked in as so.
1.24 +
1.25 +--
1.26 +Daniel Jacobowitz
1.27 +
1.28 +2004-08-20 Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@debian.org>
1.29 +
1.30 + * elflink.c (_bfd_elf_section_already_linked): Handle
1.31 + SEC_LINK_DUPLICATES_SAME_CONTENTS.
1.32 +
1.33 +Index: elflink.c
1.34 +===================================================================
1.35 +RCS file: /big/fsf/rsync/src-cvs/src/bfd/elflink.c,v
1.36 +retrieving revision 1.97
1.37 +diff -u -p -r1.97 elflink.c
1.38 +--- binutils/bfd/elflink.c 18 Aug 2004 02:45:42 -0000 1.97
1.39 ++++ binutils/bfd/elflink.c 21 Aug 2004 00:59:08 -0000
1.40 +@@ -9366,6 +9366,36 @@ _bfd_elf_section_already_linked (bfd *ab
1.41 + (_("%B: duplicate section `%A' has different size\n"),
1.42 + abfd, sec);
1.43 + break;
1.44 ++
1.45 ++ case SEC_LINK_DUPLICATES_SAME_CONTENTS:
1.46 ++ if (sec->size != l->sec->size)
1.47 ++ (*_bfd_error_handler)
1.48 ++ (_("%B: duplicate section `%A' has different size\n"),
1.49 ++ abfd, sec);
1.50 ++ else if (sec->size != 0)
1.51 ++ {
1.52 ++ bfd_byte *sec_contents, *l_sec_contents;
1.53 ++
1.54 ++ if (!bfd_malloc_and_get_section (abfd, sec, &sec_contents))
1.55 ++ (*_bfd_error_handler)
1.56 ++ (_("%B: warning: could not read contents of section `%A'\n"),
1.57 ++ abfd, sec);
1.58 ++ else if (!bfd_malloc_and_get_section (l->sec->owner, l->sec,
1.59 ++ &l_sec_contents))
1.60 ++ (*_bfd_error_handler)
1.61 ++ (_("%B: warning: could not read contents of section `%A'\n"),
1.62 ++ l->sec->owner, l->sec);
1.63 ++ else if (memcmp (sec_contents, l_sec_contents, sec->size) != 0)
1.64 ++ (*_bfd_error_handler)
1.65 ++ (_("%B: warning: duplicate section `%A' has different contents\n"),
1.66 ++ abfd, sec);
1.67 ++
1.68 ++ if (sec_contents)
1.69 ++ free (sec_contents);
1.70 ++ if (l_sec_contents)
1.71 ++ free (l_sec_contents);
1.72 ++ }
1.73 ++ break;
1.74 + }
1.75 +
1.76 + /* Set the output_section field so that lang_add_section
1.77 +