This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
RE: [RFC] Extension to NOCROSSREFS linker script command
- From: Matthew Fortune <Matthew dot Fortune at imgtec dot com>
- To: Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>, "binutils at sourceware dot org" <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 15:49:44 +0000
- Subject: RE: [RFC] Extension to NOCROSSREFS linker script command
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <6D39441BF12EF246A7ABCE6654B023537E3D0B33 at hhmail02 dot hh dot imgtec dot org> <570E4DE9 dot 6080502 at redhat dot com>
Nick Clifton <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Hi Matthew,
> > My proposal is relatively simple... A new command to check one
> > direction
> > only:
> > NOCROSSREFSTO (<to-section> , <from-section1> , <from-section2> ...)
> > The implementation of this in LD is pretty trivial. Any thoughts on
> > this or alternative approaches?
> Actually this sounds like a sensible approach.
> My concern from a binutils point of view is "is it worth it ?" Any new
> feature has the possibility of introducing new bugs, and we want to
> avoid feature-creep. So adding a new feature that is only going to be
> used by one person - ie you - would seem like a bad idea. Now if there
> were other people also requesting this functionality, then that would be
> a different matter.
> Of course this does not mean you should not create the patch if you want
> to, just that you should be prepared for the possibility that the patch
> might not be accepted into the official sources if we think that it is
> too risky.
Understood and agreed.
I would hope there are other users beyond myself (or rather MIPS embedded
users) who would find this kind of check useful when working with complex
memory layouts in multi-threaded or multi-core environments...
Either way I'll prepare the patch; it is small (sub 30 lines in my first
attempt) but number of lines doesn't always make decisions easier.