From 239e1f3afa2f6bc24acde3b81481f933b40a3531 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Alan Modra Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 05:33:28 +0000 Subject: * elf32-i386.c (elf_i386_relocate_section): Don't complain about unresolved debugging relocs in dynamic applications. * elf32-s390.c (elf_s390_relocate_section): Likewise. * elf32-sparc.c (elf32_sparc_relocate_section): Likewise. * elf64-ppc.c (ppc64_elf_relocate_section): Likewise. * elf64-s390.c (elf_s390_relocate_section): Likewise. * elf64-sparc.c (sparc64_elf_relocate_section): Likewise. * elf64-x86-64.c (elf64_x86_64_relocate_section): Likewise. --- bfd/elf64-ppc.c | 10 ++++------ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) (limited to 'bfd/elf64-ppc.c') diff --git a/bfd/elf64-ppc.c b/bfd/elf64-ppc.c index 4312620..9ed037f 100644 --- a/bfd/elf64-ppc.c +++ b/bfd/elf64-ppc.c @@ -5907,13 +5907,11 @@ ppc64_elf_relocate_section (output_bfd, info, input_bfd, input_section, break; } - /* FIXME: Why do we allow debugging sections to escape this error? - More importantly, why do we not emit dynamic relocs above in - debugging sections (which are ! SEC_ALLOC)? If we had - emitted the dynamic reloc, we could remove the fudge here. */ + /* Dynamic relocs are not propagated for SEC_DEBUGGING sections + because such sections are not SEC_ALLOC and thus ld.so will + not process them. */ if (unresolved_reloc - && !(info->shared - && (input_section->flags & SEC_DEBUGGING) != 0 + && !((input_section->flags & SEC_DEBUGGING) != 0 && (h->elf_link_hash_flags & ELF_LINK_HASH_DEF_DYNAMIC) != 0)) { (*_bfd_error_handler) -- cgit v1.1