code review 1886043: ld: various bug fixes

ld: various bug fixes

Fixes issue 937.
Fixes issue 938.
Fixes issue 939.
Fixes issue 940.

[rsc, 2010-07-21 06:46:20]

Hello r (cc: golang-dev@googlegroups.com),

I'd like you to review this change.

[r, 2010-07-21 14:13:23]

LGTM

i would have called the function "mangled"

[kaib2, 2010-07-21 16:25:04]

should these be ported to 5l as well?

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 9:46 AM,  <rsc@golang.org> wrote:
> Reviewers: r,
>
> Message:
> Hello r (cc: golang-dev@googlegroups.com),
>
> I'd like you to review this change.
>
>
> Description:
> ld: various bug fixes
>
> Fixes issue 937.
> Fixes issue 938.
> Fixes issue 939.
> Fixes issue 940.
>
> Please review this at http://codereview.appspot.com/1886043/show
>
> Affected files:
>  M src/cmd/6l/obj.c
>  M src/cmd/6l/pass.c
>  M src/cmd/8l/obj.c
>  M src/cmd/8l/pass.c
>  M src/cmd/ld/lib.c
>  M src/cmd/ld/lib.h
>
>
>

[r, 2010-07-21 16:46:41]

sure.

-rob

[rsc, 2010-07-21 16:51:30]

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 09:24, Kai Backman <kai.backman@gmail.com> wrote:
> should these be ported to 5l as well?

i've been applying fixes to 5l too as necessary.
this last round was specific to 6l and 8l.

its input files have a different, simpler layout
and the one place 5l indexes into h was
already doing the appropriate bounds check.

if the go type information is added in the form
currently used by 6l and 8l, we'll need to remember
to add the check before indexing into h.

russ

[kaib2, 2010-07-21 17:39:52]

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org> wrote:
> i've been applying fixes to 5l too as necessary.
<snip>

perfect. thanks.

[rsc, 2010-07-21 20:44:56]

*** Submitted as http://code.google.com/p/go/source/detail?r=ceb840cc45e8 ***

ld: various bug fixes

Fixes issue 937.
Fixes issue 938.
Fixes issue 939.
Fixes issue 940.

R=r
CC=golang-dev
http://codereview.appspot.com/1886043