Rebased & reworked: [Patch mach-o 1/3] section directives needed to support GCC

[Iain Sandoe]

On 13 Dec 2011, at 14:15, Tristan Gingold wrote:

>
> On Dec 13, 2011, at 2:45 PM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>
>> rebased to use objdump -P.
>> plus changes per your comments (with some specific observations as  
>> below).
>
> Ok.  Should I commit it ?
>
> Tristan.
>
>>
>> On 13 Dec 2011, at 09:44, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>>> See enclosing comments,
>>
>>>> +     0 entry.  */
>>>> +  _bfd_stringtab_add (strtab, "", TRUE, FALSE);
>>>> +
>>
>>> Ah, yes.  BTW I think that the string is padded to 4 or 8 bytes too.
>>
>> not for XCode 3.1.4 or 3.2.5 (I don't have XC 4.x yet) -
>> however, I did notice it should not be emitted unless there is at  
>> least one symbol - amended.
>>
>>>> +          *input_line_pointer = '\0'; /* make a temp string.  */
>>>> +	  as_warn (_("the %s name '%s' exceeds 16 characters,  
>>>> truncated"),
>>>> +		     msg, namstart);
>>
>>> Warning or error ?
>> thanks, it should be error - to match system tools, amended.
>>
>>>> +  /* 10 */ {".picsymbol_stub2", 25, 0}, /* X86 - extension */
>>>> +  /* 11 */ {".picsymbol_stub3", 5, 0}, /* X86 - extension  */
>>>> +};
>>
>>> Should we #if/#endif arch extensions ?
>>
>> .. as it is, it allows us to make a more specific and User-friendly  
>> error message than
>> the generic "Unknown pseudo-op"... but if you would prefer to ifdef  
>> - I think it should
>> be in the main table below - or we'll have to keep track of  
>> changing indices.
>>
>>>> static symbolS *
>>
>>> Usually we let a blank line between the comment and the  
>>> definition.  There are many occurrences and I am not sure the  
>>> existing code always follow this rule.
>>
>> I've changed all the occurances in this file, will try to catch  
>> others as I go.
>>
>>> +  { "picsymbol_stub2", obj_mach_o_opt_tgt_section, 4}, /*  
>>> extension.  */
>>> +  { "picsymbol_stub3", obj_mach_o_opt_tgt_section, 4}, /*  
>>> extension.  */
>>
>> #if/#endif arch specific pseudo ?
>>
>> here if at all - but comment as above.
>>
>>>> +  (BFDSEC)->used_by_bfd = (MACHOSEC)
>>>> +
>>>> +#define OBJ_MACH_O_GET_BACKEND_SECT_DATA(ABFD, BFDSEC) (BFDSEC)- 
>>>> >used_by_bfd
>>
>>> Doesn't this duplicate mach-o.h: bfd_mach_o_get_mach_o_section ?
>>
>> removed.
>>
>> ========
> […]
>