https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32435
--- Comment #26 from Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com> --- (In reply to Jan Beulich from comment #22) > (In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #20) > > Plus, if I have read Jan's v2 patch correctly, sections in object files will > > still be aligned, but just aligned to the architecture's minimum file > > alignment, rather than the sections specified alignment. This means that > > the sections can still be fetched using aligned reads, and so the problem of > > a bus error resulting from an unaligned read should no longer occur. > > No, there are cases where no (file) alignment would be enforced at all: > Specifically for the one caller of > _bfd_elf_assign_file_position_for_section() who passes "false" for "align" > and "0" for "log_file_align". Ah, sorry I had missed that. > I'm pretty certain that Linux modpost is (was) > tripped by this case. An option might by to also pass bed->s->log_file_align > there, just that apart from the issue here there didn't appear to be a > reason to do so. Would passing bed->s->log_file_align instead of 0 have a large impact on object file size ? (My guess is that it would not unless the object file has a very large number of sections in it). If so, then passing bed->s->log_file_align would be a reasonable compromise. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
