This is the mail archive of the binutils@sourceware.org mailing list for the binutils project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: ld: separate output sections for incompatible orphans


On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 02:00:30PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> Alan Modra wrote:
> > My fix for PR6391
> 
>   6931?

Yes.  lysdexia.

>   It did indeed, but are we sure duplicate output section names don't cause
> any problems for any of the runtime loaders?

I'd appreciate some testing, especially for PE.  :-)  For ELF I'm
reasonably certain that it won't cause a problem.

>  Or will this only happen in
> relocatable links and be resolved by the final link before execution?

No, this change affects final link.

>   But the main thing I wanted to ask was a couple of style issues:
> 
> > 	* ld-pe/longsecn.exp: Delete.
> > 	* ld-pe/pe.exp: Run new test and longsecn tests.
> 
>  longsecn.exp was obviously trivial, but do you think it would be preferable
> to also merge the somewhat more substantial vers-script.exp and direct.exp?
> Is it important to avoid proliferation of .exp files, or was this just
> low-hanging fruit?

I guess I should have asked permission before I messed with your
test. :-)  Yes, this was to avoid proliferation of .exp files.  More
.exp files means slightly slower testsuite runs, for all targets.
There isn't really any reason to put simple run_dump_test style tests
in separate files.  You can select targets, set as and ld flags
etc. all in their .d files.  I think the ideal is one main .exp file
per directory to handle all the simple tests, with other .exp files as
necessary for more complex tests, but it's not terribly important.

> 
>  static bfd_boolean
> -gld${EMULATION_NAME}_place_orphan (asection *s, const char *secname)
> +gld${EMULATION_NAME}_place_orphan (asection *s,
> +				   const char *secname,
> +				   int constraint)
> 
>   We don't generally insist on one function parameter per-line elsewhere in .c
> files in ld or bfd; should this be taken as a convention specifically for .em
> files?

The formatting changes happened because I was comparing pe.em and
pep.em, removing differences, that's all.  I wasn't trying to set
a formatting standard.  ;-)

-- 
Alan Modra
Australia Development Lab, IBM


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]