[Bug binutils/24281] Failed with “thin archive” if it contain subdir's object file

[nickc at redhat dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24281

Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |ASSIGNED
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2019-03-01
                 CC|                            |nickc at redhat dot com
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #2 from Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com> ---
Hi lol lol,

  Hmm, you do realise that copying a thin library in this way is 
  essentially the same thing as just copying it normally, right ?

  The question is, what would you expect objcopy to do if you also
  had one or more of its transformation options enabled as well.  
  For example, what should this do:

    objcopy --strip-debug out.a out_copy.a

  Would you expect objcopy to create new versions of all of the
  object files linked to within out.a, with the debugging stripped
  from the new versions ?  If so, what names should be given to
  these new object files ?  Or how about:

    objcopy out.a subdir/copy.a

  Would you expect objcopy to leave the object files intact but to
  rename the links inside copy.a so that they are valid for the
  new location of the thin library ?

  It seems to me that the easiest thing to do would be to just
  reject attempts to objcopy thin archives.  But maybe this is
  too draconian.  Would you be happy if an in-place copy of a
  thin archive was allowed, but transformations, or relocations
  were refused ?

Cheers
  Nick

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