[PATCH] objcopy: add option to specify custom symbol name for binary input

[H.J. Lu]

On Sat, Oct 25, 2025 at 8:58 AM Alon Bar-Lev <alon.barlev@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2025 at 03:55, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 25, 2025 at 8:42 AM Alon Bar-Lev <alon.barlev@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, 25 Oct 2025 at 02:21, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Oct 25, 2025 at 7:19 AM Alon Bar-Lev <alon.barlev@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > When using --input-target=binary, objcopy currently derives symbol names from
>> >> > a mangled version of the input file name.  This approach can lead to
>> >> > unpredictable results, as the generated symbols depend on the file path and
>> >> > working directory.
>> >> >
>> >> > This patch introduces a new option:
>> >> >
>> >> >   --input-symbol <name>    Use <name> as the base symbol name for the input file
>> >> >                            (default: derived from file name)
>> >> >
>> >> > It allows specifying an explicit symbol name, while preserving the existing
>> >> > behavior as a fallback.
>> >> >
>> >> > Signed-off-by: Alon Bar-Lev <alon.barlev@gmail.com>
>> >> > ---
>> >>
>> >> Tests are missing.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> H.J.
>> >
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I could not find reference to tests for the current implementation.
>> > I added tests, I had to guess the target output, please let me know if there is a better method.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Alon
>>
>> You are adding a new option.  You must be using it yourself.
>> The outputs of the tests that you are adding should match your
>> expectation.  Your test should cover all aspects of the new
>> option.
>>
>
> I do not follow... is there something wrong with the tests I added?
> I would appreciate a review.
>
> Thanks,
> Alon

I could be wrong.   It looks like random outputs may pass your tests.
You know exactly what output your option is generating.  You should check
it against the actual output.


--
H.J.