https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30974
Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment #4 from Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com> ---
(In reply to Stas Sergeev from comment #3)
> You need to consider being compatible
> with lld, which disagree with what you
> say.
Compatibility would be nice, but ld.bfd does explicitly specify its current
behaviour in its documentation:
'--defsym=SYMBOL=EXPRESSION'
[...]
The linker processes '--defsym' arguments and '-T' arguments in
order, placing '--defsym' before '-T' will define the symbol before
the linker script from '-T' is processed, while placing '--defsym'
after '-T' will define the symbol after the linker script has been
processed. This difference has consequences for expressions within
the linker script that use the '--defsym' symbols, which order is
correct will depend on what you are trying to achieve.
I could not find any similar documentation for lld's --defsym and -T options,
but I am not greatly familiar with those sources so it is quite possible that I
missed something.
Anyway my point is that changing the bfd linker's behaviour now might not be a
good idea, given that there are likely to be projects out there that depend
upon the current specification.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
