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: Tristan Gingold <gingold at adacore dot com>
- To: Richard Sandiford <richard dot sandiford at linaro dot org>
- Cc: Catherine Moore <clm at codesourcery dot com>, binutils at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 10:51:51 +0200
- Subject: Re: Comments requested for proposed for ld scripting language extension
- References: <4DB99A38.1010801@codesourcery.com> <0AE7F26B-5214-479E-8B71-68CDE3A31511@adacore.com> <g4oc3kxjfz.fsf@linaro.org>
On May 3, 2011, at 10:44 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> 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.
Sure.
>> 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