[Bug binutils/19104] [PATCH] 'add symbol' feature in objcopy

[nickc at redhat dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19104

Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |nickc at redhat dot com

--- Comment #3 from Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com> ---
Hi Ronald,

  The patch does look good, but there are a few problems with it:

  1. Copyright: Do you have an FSF copyright assignment in place for the
binutils project ?  Wthout that we cannot accept this patch. :-(

  2. Formatting: Please follow the guidelines here:
       http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/

  3. Documentation: You need to include an update to the
binutils/doc/binutils.texi file that describes this new option.  Also a small
patch to the binutils/NEWS file mentioning the new feature.  An entry for the
binutils/ChangeLog file would also be helpful.

  4. Testing: It would be nice if you could find a way to add a test (or two)
to the binutils test suite that checks this feature.  That way we can make sure
that it continues to work in the future.


> Some
> symbol flags depend on the ordering of symbols in the symtab (warning,
> indirect) if I understand correctly...

You do.

> so I preserved the order of the added
> symbols. Maybe one more useful feature could be to add a symbol in front of
> another existing symbol, to enhance the usability of the warning flag

Actually that might be a nice feature.  Although it also brings up the issue of
what happens if you try to add a symbol which already exists ?

How about this:

  If the symbol already exists and the symbol that is being added has the
warning flag set, then it is treated as the addition of a warning, and it is
inserted before the real symbol.
  Otherwise if the new version of the symbol has the same flags as the current
version then the addition is ignored.
  Otherwise an error message is generated.

I could not think of a simple way to insert indirect symbols for already
existing symbols, so maybe we should ignore this possibility for now ?

Cheers
  Nick

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.