PATCH: PR ld/14156: -sort-section=alignment trashes init/fini sections, and anything similar
H.J. Lu
hjl.tools@gmail.com
Thu Jun 28 02:13:00 GMT 2012
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 10:30:11AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> case lang_wild_statement_enum:
>> sec = s->wild_statement.section_list;
>> - for (sec = s->wild_statement.section_list; sec != NULL;
>> - sec = sec->next)
>> + /* Don't sort .init/.fini sections. */
>> + if (sec == NULL
>> + || strcmp (sec->spec.name, ".init") == 0
>> + || strcmp (sec->spec.name, ".fini") == 0)
>> + break;
>> + for (; sec != NULL; sec = sec->next)
>> {
>> switch (sec->spec.sorted)
>> {
>
> If we are going to hard code .init and .fini names (and we do that
> elsewhere) I think it would be better to disable the sorting when
> looking at the output_section_statement rather than the
> wild_statement.
I thought about to do it at
case lang_output_section_statement_enum:
update_wild_statements
(s->output_section_statement.children.head);
break;
Then I had to handle all those different enums. It is
easier just to it at
case lang_wild_statement_enum:
sec = s->wild_statement.section_list;
It makes very little difference in term of performance.
> Hmm, even better, inplement a SORT_NONE script keyword to extend our
> current list of sorting keywords, SORT_BY_NAME, SORT_BY_ALIGNMENT and
> SORT_BY_INIT_PRIORITY. SORT_NONE does the obvious, overriding
> --sort-section=name and --sort-section=alignment.
>
It won't work correctly with existing customer linker scripts.
I think we should just hardcode ,init/.fini section names.
--
H.J.
More information about the Binutils
mailing list