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

[Richard Earnshaw (lists)]

On 07/11/2025 10:53, Jan Beulich wrote:
> 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

If bigobj is making symbols too long, then how about 'bo' instead?

R.