Re: Comments requested for proposed for ld scripting language extension

[Catherine Moore <clm at codesourcery dot com>]

On 05/03/2011 04:44 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Tristan Gingold<gingold@adacore.com>  writes:
> > I also think that you could make the design a little bit generic and
> > allow boolean negation.  What about something like:
>
> Sounds good, but...
>
> >   .text : FLAGS (-SHF_PPC_VLE)
> >   {
> >     *(.text .text.* .gnu.linkonce.t.*)
> >   }>ram
> >   .text_vle : FLAGS (+SHF_PPC_VLE)
> >   {
> >     *(.text .text.* .gnu.linkonce.t.*)
> >   }>ram
>
> ...how about using C operators (SHF_PPC_VLE and !SHF_PPC_VLE) instead?
> That'd be more consistent with other script expressions.

Thank you all for the comments.  I will plan to implement this version 
using C operators.

> > Finally I wonder if the flags shouldn't be in the input section part,
> > in order to make this feature even more generic:
> >
> > .text :
> >   {
> >     *(.text .text.* .gnu.linkonce.t.*) FLAGS (-SHF_PPC_VLE)
> >   }>ram
>
> While this might be useful in some cases, I think Catherine's version
> is going to make the usual case easier.  FWIW, I agree with Alan that
> it fits nicely with the existing ONLY_IF_* constraints.

Catherine