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

[Alon Bar-Lev]

On Sat, 25 Oct 2025 at 04:11, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
>
I compared it to other tests patterns and it is at the same level, having
`binary_*_symbol_*` is far from being random in this context.
Not sure what you mean actual output, I would appreciate an example of
other test which does this per your expectation.

Thanks,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/attachments/20251025/1d49b9ad/attachment-0001.htm>