This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the binutils project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: PATCH: Multiple sections with same name don't work


On Sat, May 01, 2004 at 12:06:18AM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 10:50:08PM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 10:12:01PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> > > Alan Modra <amodra@bigpond.net.au> writes:
> > > > The real question is: Do we need multiple sections of the same name
> > > > in assembly files?  I don't think we do.
> > > 
> > > I need them in order to generate COMDAT sections compatible with the
> > > HPUX linker.  gcc might emit e.g.
> > > 
> > >      .section .text 
> > >      # non-COMDAT code  ...
> > > 
> > >      .section .text,"G",symbol_name,comdat
> > >      # code for symbol_name ...

Hmm, it wouldn't be much harder to use

     .section .text.symbol_name,"G",symbol_name,comdat
     # code for symbol_name ...

I fear HJ is going to be repeating the following a few more times.. 

> This patch is not enough. Here is an updated one.

[snip]
> +  /* Don't reset it if it is already a BFD section symbol.  */
> +  if ((s->bsym->flags & BSF_SECTION_SYM) == 0)
> +    s->bsym = bsym;

This is a useless comment.  It just says what anyone can see from the
next line of code.  It would be better to say _why_ it is necessary to
treat section symbols specially.

-- 
Alan Modra
IBM OzLabs - Linux Technology Centre


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]