[PATCH v2 5/5] ld: clarify comments on /DISCARD/ output section behavior

[Jan Beulich]

On 14.10.2025 12:46, Matthieu Longo wrote:
> --- a/ld/ldlang.c
> +++ b/ld/ldlang.c
> @@ -2709,17 +2709,25 @@ wont_add_section_p (asection *section,
>  
>    if (discard)
>      {
> +      /* /DISCARD/ is seen first and the top-most clause has precedence on the
> +	 next ones, thus the section will be dropped.  No need to warn about
> +	 potential change in behavior with non-contiguous regions when the
> +	 section is already dropped.  */
>        if (section->output_section == NULL)
>  	{
>  	  /* This prevents future calls from assigning this section or
>  	     warning about it again.  */
>  	  section->output_section = bfd_abs_section_ptr;
>  	}
> -      else if (bfd_is_abs_section (section->output_section))
> -	;
> -      else if (link_info.non_contiguous_regions_warnings)
> +      /* The /DISCARD/ clause appears after previous ones which assigned the
> +	 input section to an output section.  /DISCARD/ does not have the
> +	 precedence, so the section will be kept.  */
> +      else if (! bfd_is_abs_section (section->output_section)
> +	       && link_info.non_contiguous_regions_warnings)
>  	einfo (_("%P:%pS: warning: --enable-non-contiguous-regions makes "
> -		 "section `%pA' from `%pB' match /DISCARD/ clause.\n"),
> +		 "section `%pA' from `%pB' match /DISCARD/ clause.  If the "
> +		 "section can be assigned to an output section, it won't be "
> +		 "discarded.\n"),

Besides this getting excessively long for a single line, to me comment and
message text also read partially contradictory: The comment says "will",
while the diagnostic effectively says "may". Which one is it?

Jan