Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 12:00:17 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: "Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: .align directives in libc.a
In-Reply-To: <199907182125.VAA68238@out5.ibm.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990720115957.4115G-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Sun, 18 Jul 1999, Mark E. wrote:

> > > I counted the number of .bss .data and .text sections in libc.a
> > > (nm libc.a | grep .text | wc -l etc.) and ended up with 2123 sections but a
> > After playing with the binutils in CVS this weekend, I don't think this is 
> > right. 'nm' prints symbols and what you're seeing are the symbols 
> 
> I'm definitely not in the zone today. What I said is somewhat true but 
> ultimately incorrect. Sorry for wasting your time. 

Did you see anything in your testing that would contradict the
conclusion, namely, that configuring Binutils with a 16-byte default
alignment of sections would not cause too much waste?