[Bug gas/5900] ELF files with more than 65536 sections not handled correctly.

[hjl dot tools at gmail dot com]

------- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com  2008-03-10 
03:43 -------
(In reply to comment #4)
> I think you need to qualify what you say.  It is clearly true that the 
> st_shndx
> field of a symbol is not a pure section index.  Any value above LORESERVE is
> indeed reserved.  The ELF ABI defines what to do for a symbol whose section
> index is larger than LORESERVE: put SHN_XINDEX in the st_shndx field, and put
> the real section index in the corresponding entry in the SHT_SYMTAB_SHNDX
> section.  Note that the ABI does not say to store the section index plus 256; 
> it
> says to store the section index.
> 
> None of this has anything to do with the sh_link field in section header 0 
> when
> the section string table is larger than LORESERVE.  In that case, I think the
> ELF ABI says to put the section index in the sh_link field.  It does not say 
> to
> put the section index plus 256.  Currently BFD is putting the section index 
> plus
> 256.  I think that is wrong.

I think it is up for debate. I can see the point for the current BFD
behavior. That is each section index is unique, including special
ones. When I say section index 0xfff2, there is no ambiguity about
which section it refers to. Would you mind raising your concern at

http://groups.google.com/group/generic-abi 
> For the original test case, for a symbol defined in a section whose index is
> larger than LORESERVE, what does icc put in the SHT_SYMTAB_SHNDX section?  
> Does
> it put the section index, or the section index plus 256?  I believe that the 
> ELF
> ABI says that it should store the former.  BFD stores the latter.  What does 
> the
> BFD readelf -s report for those symbols in the object compiled by icc?

Would you mind downloading icc to check it out? I believe icc is free for
non-commercial use.


-- 


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5900

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.