This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Comments requested for proposed for ld scripting language extension
- From: Richard Sandiford <richard dot sandiford at linaro dot org>
- To: Tristan Gingold <gingold at adacore dot com>
- Cc: Catherine Moore <clm at codesourcery dot com>, binutils at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 09:44:00 +0100
- Subject: Re: Comments requested for proposed for ld scripting language extension
- References: <4DB99A38.1010801@codesourcery.com> <0AE7F26B-5214-479E-8B71-68CDE3A31511@adacore.com>
Tristan Gingold <gingold@adacore.com> writes:
> I also think that you could make the design a little bit generic and
> allow boolean negation. What about something like:
Sounds good, but...
>
> .text : FLAGS (-SHF_PPC_VLE)
> {
> *(.text .text.* .gnu.linkonce.t.*)
> } >ram
> .text_vle : FLAGS (+SHF_PPC_VLE)
> {
> *(.text .text.* .gnu.linkonce.t.*)
> } >ram
...how about using C operators (SHF_PPC_VLE and !SHF_PPC_VLE) instead?
That'd be more consistent with other script expressions.
> Finally I wonder if the flags shouldn't be in the input section part,
> in order to make this feature even more generic:
>
> .text :
> {
> *(.text .text.* .gnu.linkonce.t.*) FLAGS (-SHF_PPC_VLE)
> } >ram
While this might be useful in some cases, I think Catherine's version
is going to make the usual case easier. FWIW, I agree with Alan that
it fits nicely with the existing ONLY_IF_* constraints.
Richard