This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Should the assembler pad a section to its alignment?
- From: Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com>
- To: Roland McGrath <mcgrathr at google dot com>
- Cc: "binutils at sourceware dot org" <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 11:06:35 +0930
- Subject: Re: Should the assembler pad a section to its alignment?
- References: <CAB=4xhr+RxieMMYbn53RyKaMYtveyt1eEDzVdPoHJszAU1S=sw at mail dot gmail dot com> <20130817014046 dot GJ4024 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org> <CAB=4xhoApfE+_WPuL-5kW-4CNEVfbz3SDyWwPu=a3U3VXEn8aA at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 10:27:10AM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Alan Modra <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > SUB_SEGMENT_ALIGN is what you're looking for.
> Thanks. Now I see how the difference comes about, and how to change the
> code to make it uniform. I still have no idea what rationale there ever
> might have been for the current behavior.
> Moreover, nobody has offered any opinions on whether it ought to change
> and, if so, in which direction. Am I the only one who cares either way?
I'd suggest changing it just for nacl. Always padding sections at the
end of a segment isn't ideal as it effectively aligns the next segment
to the current segment's alignment. This might mean extra memory
and/or disk pages are needed.
Australia Development Lab, IBM