[Patch mach-o/gas] make section type names target-dependent.

[Iain Sandoe]

On 19 Dec 2011, at 12:28, Tristan Gingold wrote:

>
> On Dec 19, 2011, at 1:20 PM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>
>>
>> On 19 Dec 2011, at 09:58, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>>> On Dec 16, 2011, at 9:34 PM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am trying to test the four main Darwin targets as I implement  
>>>> things ..
>>>> .. the Idea being that, one day, we will simply be able to enable  
>>>> them all in configure...
>>>>
>>>> Testing my current stuff (for symbol type qualifiers) reminded me  
>>>> that some section types are not applicable to all targets.
>>>> (At present, specifically, that means that x86-64 doesn't support  
>>>> symbol stubs, or {non,}lazy_symbol_stubs).
>>>>
>>>> The patch below checks for a target-specific table ahead of the  
>>>> generic one.
>>>> I followed the current style of printing in binutils/od-macho.c  
>>>> and parsing in bfd/mach-o.c although I wonder if it might be more  
>>>> obvious to put them both back into bfd/mach-o.c and just publish  
>>>> the accessor routines.
>>>
>>> Thank you for working on that.
>>>
>>> May I suggest a slightly different approach (feel free to discuss  
>>> it) ?
>>>
>>> These section types are defined independently of the targets.  So  
>>> I think they must stay in bfd_mach_o_section_type_name.
>>> I agree that some are not valid on some targets.  So just add a  
>>> subtarget hook that returns FALSE if the section type is not  
>>> supported by
>>> the target.
>>
>> Seems reasonable - I suppose we can work on the principle that the  
>> section type can't be in an object unless it's supported - so we  
>> only need to check when creating/writing.
>>
>> new version,
>> OK?
>
> Almost OK for me.  I don't understand the reordering of  
> bfd_mach_o_section type.  They were ordering by values.  What is the  
> new criteria ?

Well, the expensive search is on the text when running gas.  I was  
thinking that, ideally, the tables would be ordered so that the most- 
often-used types are near the beginning (a dup value had also crept in).

> OK without these reordering chunks.

presumably it's OK to remove the dup - or have I missed something?

>  Should I commit ?

I suppose I should do this one.. and see if I have everything in place  
correctly...

cheers
Iain