https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19104
--- Comment #5 from Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com> --- Hi Ronald, >> How about this: >> >> If the symbol already exists and the symbol that is being added has the >> warning flag set, then it is treated as the addition of a warning, and it is >> inserted before the real symbol. >> Otherwise if the new version of the symbol has the same flags as the >> current version then the addition is ignored. >> Otherwise an error message is generated. >> > I am not really sure what you mean here. As far as I understand, a warning > symbol will print a warning in the linker when the following symbol is used. > The text in the warning is the name of the symbol and the value is irrelevant. Doh! Yes, I was getting confused about how warning symbols are used. > I was more > thinking about adding another flag (which is not a real symbol flag), like > 'before=<symbol>'. This will surely complicate the 'parse_symflags' function, > but at least not trigger symbol lookup for all --add-symbol, only when this > flag is given. Or maybe another suffix like '@<symbol>' to specify before > which > other symbol the symbol (whether warning or not) needs to be inserted. Mmmm, OK - that makes sense. > AH, and maybe there needs to be 'escapes' in case the user wants to specify > symbols containing ':' or ',' or '@'... True. Would you care to submit a revised patch then ? Cheers Nick -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils