------- Additional Comments From ian at airs dot com 2008-03-10 03:00 ------- I think you need to qualify what you say. It is clearly true that the st_shndx field of a symbol is not a pure section index. Any value above LORESERVE is indeed reserved. The ELF ABI defines what to do for a symbol whose section index is larger than LORESERVE: put SHN_XINDEX in the st_shndx field, and put the real section index in the corresponding entry in the SHT_SYMTAB_SHNDX section. Note that the ABI does not say to store the section index plus 256; it says to store the section index.
None of this has anything to do with the sh_link field in section header 0 when the section string table is larger than LORESERVE. In that case, I think the ELF ABI says to put the section index in the sh_link field. It does not say to put the section index plus 256. Currently BFD is putting the section index plus 256. I think that is wrong. For the original test case, for a symbol defined in a section whose index is larger than LORESERVE, what does icc put in the SHT_SYMTAB_SHNDX section? Does it put the section index, or the section index plus 256? I believe that the ELF ABI says that it should store the former. BFD stores the latter. What does the BFD readelf -s report for those symbols in the object compiled by icc? -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5900 ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
