This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Gold bug in ordering text sections.
- From: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
- To: Sriraman Tallam <tmsriram at google dot com>
- Cc: binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google dot com>, David Li <davidxl at google dot com>, Cary Coutant <ccoutant at google dot com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 14:33:02 -0800
- Subject: Re: Gold bug in ordering text sections.
- References: <CAAs8Hmy+9rXaJAD03dxo4cq3wN9uoMZDQNEsg8kUw_U2vVN+Kg@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Sriraman Tallam <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> This patch to gold : http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2012-12/msg00227.html
> broke option --section-ordering-file and plugin based reordering. This
> patch treats text sections as reorderable when special prefixes like
> ".text.hot" are seen. However, when --section-ordering-file (or
> plugins) is also used then it cannot override the default sorting as
> the code in output.cc to do sorting checks for
> "must_sort_attached_input_sections()" first and this is always true
> for .text sections with those prefixes.
> I have created the following patch to fix this. I have basically
> disabled default sorting of .text sections in the presence of
> --section-ordering-file or plugins. I think this makes sense because
> this is also disabled in the presence of linker scripts.
> One other alternative is to unset
> "must_sort_attached_input_sections" for ".text" if
> section-ordering-file or plugins do reorder ".text". This can sort
> .text sections by default if --section-ordering-file does not touch
> any .text sections. I think this is overkill though.
> This went unnoticed because none of the test cases generated the
> special prefix for input text sections. I have modified the plugin
> based test case to catch this problem. This test case will fail if the
> patch to layout.cc is not present.
This patch is OK.