> -----Original Message-----
> From: Colin Burgess [mailto:community-noreply@qnx.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 2:49 PM
> To: general-toolchain
> Subject: Re: strip stripping naked
> 
> Or pass -Wl,-s to have the linker strip?

We don`t want to strip there ;)

> 
> I normally use strip -g to ONLY strip debug info.

That will probably have to do for now.

I`m sure a bunch of people are currently being bitten by this.  I mean stripping is a "standard" procedure when 
releasing software no?

> 
> Max Feil wrote:
> > Maybe just put the stack size on the executable after stripping
> instead
> > of at link time?
> >
> > Eg. stack size 512K:
> >
> > ldrel -L -S 512K <executable>
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mario Charest [mailto:community-noreply@qnx.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 2:32 PM
> > To: general-toolchain
> > Subject: strip stripping naked
> >
> > We just discovered to our dismay that strip will reset to the default
> > the stacksize and throw away the stack size specify at link time!
> >
> > Does that mean I need to use the option --strip-symbol to prevent the
> > info about the stack size to be removed?  What symbol name should I
> use?
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > General
> > http://community.qnx.com/sf/go/post42187
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > General
> > http://community.qnx.com/sf/go/post42188
> >
> 
> --
> cburgess@qnx.com
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> General
> http://community.qnx.com/sf/go/post42190
> 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Colin Burgess [mailto:community-noreply@qnx.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 2:49 PM
> To: general-toolchain
> Subject: Re: strip stripping naked
> 
> Or pass -Wl,-s to have the linker strip?
> 
> I normally use strip -g to ONLY strip debug info.
> 


I`m told doing strip -g ends  up doing the same thing.

> Max Feil wrote:
> > Maybe just put the stack size on the executable after stripping
> instead
> > of at link time?
> >
> > Eg. stack size 512K:
> >
> > ldrel -L -S 512K <executable>
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mario Charest [mailto:community-noreply@qnx.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 2:32 PM
> > To: general-toolchain
> > Subject: strip stripping naked
> >
> > We just discovered to our dismay that strip will reset to the default
> > the stacksize and throw away the stack size specify at link time!
> >
> > Does that mean I need to use the option --strip-symbol to prevent the
> > info about the stack size to be removed?  What symbol name should I
> use?
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > General
> > http://community.qnx.com/sf/go/post42187
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > General
> > http://community.qnx.com/sf/go/post42188
> >
> 
> --
> cburgess@qnx.com
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> General
> http://community.qnx.com/sf/go/post42190
> 

Mario Charest wrote:
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ryan Mansfield [mailto:community-noreply@qnx.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 2:53 PM
>> To: general-toolchain
>> Subject: Re: strip stripping naked
>>
>> Mario Charest wrote:
>>> We just discovered to our dismay that strip will reset to the default
>> the stacksize and throw away the stack size specify at link time!
>>
>> Which version of Momentics are you using? 6.3.2? In 6.4.x I wouldn't
>> expect the note to be strip-able as it should end up in an allocated
>> section.
> 
> We tried with strip from both 6.3.2 and 6.4.1 with no difference in behavior (having the default stack size made our 
program crashed)

No, it wouldn't be a difference in how strip functions. The difference 
would be between how the note is created, and manipulated (i.e. linker 
and ldrel).

It works as I expected in 6.4.1 but I reproduced the problem under 
6.3.2. I'll try to come up with a reasonable solution for you for 6.3.2.

Regards,

Ryan Mansfield