Comments requested for proposed for ld scripting language extension

Richard Sandiford richard.sandiford@linaro.org
Tue May 3 08:44:00 GMT 2011


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.

> 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.

Richard



More information about the Binutils mailing list