Re: Patch: Add c6x-uclinux support

[Bernd Schmidt <bernds at codesourcery dot com>]

On 03/30/2011 01:42 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> 
>>> I'm happy with the directive, and given your other comments with the 
>>> section index (though it appears there must have been an omission to put 
>>> this index into the latest ABI version, which postdates the discussion you 
>>> mention).  But why is the additional section *name* needed?  How does it 
>>> differ from .bss?
>>
>> Oh, ok. To be honest - all this code is just copied from other ports, so
>> I think "precedent" would be the reason. I'd prefer not to diverge
>> unnecessarily from existing practice.
>>
>> Looking at it now, it seems to me that common symbols require the
>> behavior enabled by
>> .  {* The section contains common symbols (symbols may be defined
>> .     multiple times, the value of a symbol is the amount of
>> .     space it requires, and the largest symbol value is the one
>> .     used).  Most targets have exactly one of these (which we
>> .     translate to bfd_com_section_ptr), but ECOFF has two.  *}
>> .#define SEC_IS_COMMON 0x1000
>>
>> This is tested in a few places in elflink.c for example.
>>
>> Are you specifically worried about code in the assembler or the linker,
>> or both?
> 
> I'm generally concerned that I don't understand why there are three 
> sections rather than two here.  Why isn't .bss being given this property 
> and used in place of .scommon?

Because it contains symbols that aren't common?

I'm not sure I understand the question, really.


Bernd