This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [Patch mach-o 3/3] section directives needed to support GCC
On Dec 13, 2011, at 11:01 AM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
> Hi Tristan,
> Thanks for reviewing the three patches - apologies that the first one was so large.
> ... I would normally try to make smaller bites - but I guess I felt that it did all belong together (a lot of the bulk is in repetitive table stuff).
> Do you wish me to repost after rebasing and addressing your points - (or I could send to you as a diff, if you intend to apply it).
Yes, please resubmit. I can take the diff from the mailing list.
> On 13 Dec 2011, at 09:50, Tristan Gingold wrote:e
>> On Dec 13, 2011, at 3:23 AM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>>> mach-o defaults to starting up with only the text section defined -
>>> the data and bss sections are created on demand and not emitted otherwise.
>>> further, it is possible to suppress even the text section, such that an object file can contain only specialized sections
>>> (TODO to implement the c/l switch to do this).
>> As this touches common code, I can't approve it.
>> An alternative is to remove these sections unless they are not empty (ok, slightly different semantic). Here is what I wrote to achieve that:
> I didn't do that because ISTM that we can't tell the difference between gas inserting them by default - and the User intentionally defining them as empty (for some devious reason).
> I suppose we could keep track of whether the User does define them....
I think this matter (not emitting .data and .bss) is really a detail. AFAIK, ld is happy if the sections are empty.
Anyway, as Alan has approved your changes, I am ok with them.