[PATCH v4] PR30592 objcopy: allow --set-section-flags to add or remove SHF_X86_64_LARGE

[Jan Beulich]

On 10.07.2023 20:07, Fangrui Song wrote:
> On 2023-07-10, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 08.07.2023 07:30, Fangrui Song via Binutils wrote:
>>> @@ -2631,6 +2634,19 @@ check_new_section_flags (flagword flags, bfd * abfd, const char * secname)
>>>  		 bfd_get_filename (abfd), secname);
>>>        flags &= ~ SEC_COFF_SHARED;
>>>      }
>>> +
>>> +  /* Report a fatal error if 'large' is used with a non-x86-64 ELF target.
>>> +     Suppress the error for non-ELF targets to allow -O binary and formats that
>>> +     use the bit value SEC_ELF_LARGE for other purposes.  */
>>> +  if ((flags & SEC_ELF_LARGE) != 0
>>> +      && bfd_get_flavour (abfd) == bfd_target_elf_flavour
>>> +      && get_elf_backend_data (abfd)->elf_machine_code != EM_X86_64)
>>
>> DYM
>>
>>  if ((flags & SEC_ELF_LARGE) != 0
>>      && (bfd_get_flavour (abfd) != bfd_target_elf_flavour
>> 	  || get_elf_backend_data (abfd)->elf_machine_code != EM_X86_64))
>>
>> ?
> 
> I do mean that this check is fired only when the output bfd (abfd) is
> ELF and the architecture is different from x86-64.
> 
> The bit value SEC_ELF_LARGE is shared with other object file formats
> (COFF SEC_TIC54X_BLOCK; I don't know what this target is).
> If TMS320C54X has a section with the SEC_TIC54X_BLOCK flag, we
> don't want to report a fatal error.

Hmm, I think I see what you mean. May I then suggest to re-order like
this:

  if (bfd_get_flavour (abfd) == bfd_target_elf_flavour
      && (flags & SEC_ELF_LARGE) != 0
      && get_elf_backend_data (abfd)->elf_machine_code != EM_X86_64)

?

Jan