Re: ld lma assignment

["H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>]

On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 11:25:24AM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 11:46:48AM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 05:03:44PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> > > Fixes doco for this change, and warns on backward movement of VMA
> > > unless accompanied with an explicit LMA assignment.  I guess I should
> > > have added the news item when I committed the first patch to raise
> > > awareness of the change in default lma.  Apologies for that, I wasn't
> > > trying to slip a change in under the radar!  I still feel it's a good
> > > change for 2.18, one that shouldn't affect too many scripts, and those
> > > that it does are easily fixed.
> > 
> > I tried AT (.). It seems to generate different outputs comparing with
> > the old linker.
> 
> AT(ADDR(section_name)) is probably better.  AT(.) ignores section
> alignment requirements.

It seems to work for the testcase. I think we should document it in
case that people want the old behavior.


H.J.