This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Feature request: .section$key
Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com> writes:
> > What is it exactly you want to achieve with this? If this is done
> > only at link time the only difference to the current behavior is that
> > the binary will not contain the information about the sections which
> > is a bit more compact.
>
> For, say, .ctors and .debug_info, it is required for correctness.
Sorry, I still don't see what you mean. Grouping is important in
relocatable files so that sections get used or discarded tobether (we
just had this discussions with the --gc-sections). This is addressed
in the new ELF gABI by introducing section groups.
But you were talking about the linker. In the final binary there is
not much of a difference whether code is in one section or multiple
sections.
> I wouldn't object to turning the linkonce property into an ELF flag (or
> just implementing the COMDAT groups feature), but when the key you want to
> control section matching is already a symbol name, it makes sense to put it
> in the section name.
We don't want the section name to be a key. This is wrong, it is
dangerous. Information about the content of a section must be
explicit and not implied by some magic name.
It would help me a lot if you could provide an example.
--
---------------. ,-. 1325 Chesapeake Terrace
Ulrich Drepper \ ,-------------------' \ Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA
Red Hat `--' drepper at redhat.com `------------------------