PING Re: [RFA] Linker script extension SECTION_FLAGS

[Nick Clifton]

Hi Catherine,

> Thanks for the patch review. I've developed a new patch that addresses
> the comments that both you and Tristan made regarding the original
> patch. I've now associated the INPUT_SECTION_FLAGS with the input
> section specifications instead of the output sectionas you and others
> suggested. I've tested arm-coff, mips-elf and ppc-elf. What do you
> think? Is this okay to commit?

I like this patch, but I am afraid that I cannot approve it yet.  There 
are still several problems that need to be addressed:

   * You did not test building a toolchain configured with 
"--enable-targets=all --enable-64-bit-bfd".  There were several targets 
that did not build because they did not define an appropriate 
xxx_bfd_lookup_section_flags macro.


   * The new linker tests fail for targets that do not support the 
INPUT_SECTION_FLAGS feature.  (Ie the ones that use 
bfd_generic_lookup_section_flags).


   * The ld.patch file contained the new linker tests, so the 
ld-test.patch file could not be applied afterwards.


   * The code did not check for contradictory input section flags, eg:

      INPUT_SECTION_FLAGS (SHF_TLS & !SHF_TLS)


   * There was no mention of this new feature in the ld/NEWS file.


   * You have not provided a patch for GOLD.  I would like to keep the 
two linkers in sync, at least as far as features go.


I hope that you will be willing to resolve these issues and submit a 
revised patch.

Cheers
   Nick