[PATCH v3 1/1] Add bigobj support to AArch64 COFF

[Jan Beulich]

On 27.10.2025 21:13, Evgeny Karpov wrote:
> During Boost library testing on aarch64-w64-mingw32, it appeared that 2^16
> sections are not enough. It can be handled by using the bigobj format to extend
> the total amount of sections to 2^32. This patch adds bigobj support to
> AArch64 COFF in a similar way to how it is done for x86_64.
> 
> Co-authored-by: Martin Vejbora <mvejbora@microsoft.com>

Unless you have a copyright assignment on record with the FSF, this needs your
S-o-b.

Further, your mailer has line-wrapped the patch, which means it won't apply if
someone (me?) would want to commit this on your behalf. (Besides the patch
being more difficult to review this way, of course.)

> --- a/bfd/config.bfd
> +++ b/bfd/config.bfd
> @@ -252,7 +252,7 @@ case "${targ}" in
>      ;;
>    aarch64-*-pe* | aarch64-*-mingw*)
>      targ_defvec=aarch64_pe_le_vec
> -    targ_selvecs="aarch64_pe_le_vec aarch64_pei_le_vec
> aarch64_elf64_le_vec aarch64_elf64_be_vec aarch64_elf32_le_vec
> aarch64_elf32_be_vec arm_elf32_le_vec arm_elf32_be_vec pdb_vec"
> +    targ_selvecs="aarch64_pe_le_vec aarch64_pei_le_vec
> aarch64_pe_big_le_vec aarch64_elf64_le_vec aarch64_elf64_be_vec
> aarch64_elf32_le_vec aarch64_elf32_be_vec arm_elf32_le_vec
> arm_elf32_be_vec pdb_vec"

I continue to be in trouble with the chosen naming. The side by side appearance
of "big" and "le" is disturbing. No matter that x86 uses merely "big", I think
"bigobj" would be better for architectures where endianness also needs recording
in the names.

Otherwise looks okay to me, but will of course need an Arm64 maintainer's okay
as well.

Jan