This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [Bug ld/12565] NOLOAD sections empty
- From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- To: Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "Doug Kwan (éæå)" <dougkwan at google dot com>, Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>, Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com>, binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 06:22:25 -0700
- Subject: Re: [Bug ld/12565] NOLOAD sections empty
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org/bugzilla/> <bug-12565-70-H4yGNZZKA2@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/> <4E0C8A37.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <CAH9SEo7YbgiDuYChAUXYjirrfv1OcXRDQd0cXipqat4=s75QaA@mail.gmail.com> <4E0DC823.email@example.com>
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 6:14 AM, Nick Clifton <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Hi Doug,
>> The ARM linux kernel also uses NOLOAD.
> Do you know if this entirely for .bss style sections, or maybe for
> establishing a region of memory mapped hardware or I/O ports ?
> The point I am interested in is if we changed the current behaviour of
> NOLOAD so that it *did* preserve the contents of any input sections (if
> those contents were non-zero) would this break anything ? ?I am pretty
> certain that it would, so I am not going to create a patch to make this
> change. ?But I do wonder if there any applications out there that are
> relying upon NOLOAD to actually get rid of the contents of input sections.