https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17931
Rafael Ávila de Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail dot com> cha
nged:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |ccoutant at google dot com,
| |rafael.espindola at gmail
dot com
--- Comment #2 from Rafael Ávila de Espíndola <rafael.espindola a
t gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Alan Modra from comment #1)
> No, it should not be removed. See the gABI. "Therefore, such groups must
> be included or omitted from the linked object as a unit."
I believe there is a misunderstanding here.
Semantically, during the "regular" part of the link, the linker includes or
discards groups as a unit.
During the --gc-sections part, individual sections are considered.
Even without groups, --gc-sections would be "invalid" according to the spec,
since it drop sections that should be copied to the output. The point is th
at
--gc-sections is effectively an extension.
This does show up in the real world since the deleting destructor is
unfortunately part of D5:
struct foo {
virtual ~foo(){};
};
foo x;
produces with gcc 4.9:
.section .text._ZN3fooD2Ev,"axG",@progbits,_ZN3fooD5Ev,comdat
...
_ZN3fooD2Ev:
ret
....
.set _ZN3fooD1Ev,_ZN3fooD2Ev
....
.section .text._ZN3fooD0Ev,"axG",@progbits,_ZN3fooD5Ev,comdat
....
_ZN3fooD0Ev:
jmp _ZdlPv
Note that D0 is never equal to D1 or D2 since it has to call delete. If it
is
not used in a DSO, we bloat the binary.
--
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
