This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: SHT_GROUP support, part 1
Alan Modra <amodra@bigpond.net.au> writes:
> I'm a little puzzled as to why a symbol is needed for the signature.
> Surely, a string is all that's needed?
The string is what is important but how to represent it? The cleanest
way is by a symbol. The spec contains appropriate rules for the case
when you remove a section group. And it is also possible to have
multiple symbol tables, one for each section group. So, using a
symbol is no bad choice.
> The other slightly puzzling thing in the info you sent me some time
> ago, is why "The group section must appear in the section table
> before any section it is referencing"
Why is this puzzling? This makes handling section groups much easier.
> Hmm, that could have interesting consequences, ie. lots of unwanted extra
> sections as eg. gcc swaps between .rodata and .text during code generation.
> I think you'd need some way to say "change to the most recently used
> section of a given name"
Something like that. Plus the functionality to force creating a new
section of a given name (e.g., for inside a section group).
--
---------------. ,-. 1325 Chesapeake Terrace
Ulrich Drepper \ ,-------------------' \ Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA
Red Hat `--' drepper at redhat.com `------------------------