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

[H.J. Lu]

On Sat, Oct 25, 2025 at 9:34 AM Alon Bar-Lev <alon.barlev@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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,

binary_*_symbol_* can match so many different things.
Are all of them correct?

-- 
H.J.