Re: [PATCH] Updated RDOS support

["Leif Ekblad" <leif at rdos dot net>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alan Modra" <amodra@gmail.com>
> Why should $LARGE_DATA_ADDR affect $OTHER_BSS_SECTIONS?  Hmm, I see
> LARGE_SECTIONS=yes adds .lbss to OTHER_BSS_SECTIONS.  That's not very
> nice as quite a few targets use OTHER_BSS_SECTIONS for other purposes.
> Your patch makes this even more confusing.  Also, since you seem to
> want a separate large segment, do you really want to lay out your
> large sections as .lbss, .lrodata, .ldata?  Wouldn't .lrodata, .ldata,
> .lbss make more sense?

Yes, absolutely. If the lbss area is large it will also increase executable 
size for no reason.
But, shouldn't this be the order regardless of LARGE_DATA_ADDR setting? This
seems like a bug.

Thoughts?


> Also, there isn't much point in adding support for -Tldata-segment
> here without the rest of the support, so that needs adding or simply
> omit use of SEGMENT_START().

I think that if the large segment is separated by some TBs of virtual 
memory,
the executable file would become enormous without a new section. But
I might be wrong here.

I'll look into the additional support reqúired for -Tldata-segment.


> I committed your fix for RODATA_ADDR.  Thanks!

There is also a problem with SEPARATE_CODE. First to achieve reasonable
separation it is not enough to increase address by page-size. There needs to 
be
at least on guard-page for effective separation. I would suggest the 
algorithm
should be:
1. Page align
2. Add at least one page more

Leif Ekblad