Re: meaning if elf section marked SHF_EXECINSTR but not SHF_ALLOC

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: phi gcc <phi.gcc@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: meaning if elf section marked SHF_EXECINSTR but not SHF_ALLOC
From: Marek Polacek <polacek@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 10:04:55 +0200
Cc: gcc-help@xxxxxxxxxxx
Comment: DKIM? See http://www.dkim.org
Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
In-reply-to: <CADieKzuPYeJCZuZb3_MwNM4SktXFJXZCC4qxKz36YhpjrGOzJQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)

On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 09:51:14AM +0200, phi gcc wrote:
> I wonder how a section can be marked exec instruction and not to be
> allocated ? I guess this has some magic meaning ?

Please read http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/518.

	Marek

Follow-Ups:
- Re: meaning if elf section marked SHF_EXECINSTR but not SHF_ALLOC
  - From: phi gcc

References:
- meaning if elf section marked SHF_EXECINSTR but not SHF_ALLOC
  - From: phi gcc

Prev by Date: meaning if elf section marked SHF_EXECINSTR but not SHF_ALLOC
Next by Date: Re: meaning if elf section marked SHF_EXECINSTR but not SHF_ALLOC
Previous by thread: meaning if elf section marked SHF_EXECINSTR but not SHF_ALLOC
Next by thread: Re: meaning if elf section marked SHF_EXECINSTR but not SHF_ALLOC
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Linux C Programming] [Linux Kernel] [eCos] [Fedora Development] [Fedora Announce] [Autoconf] [The DWARVES Debugging Tools] [Yosemite Campsites] [Yosemite News] [Linux GCC]

Powered by Linux