Re: RFC: Adding an extra field to Elf_Internal_Sym

[Richard Sandiford <richard dot sandiford at linaro dot org>]

Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 11:44:27AM +0000, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> One option is to add an internal-only st_type.  There is one free:
>> STT_LOPROC + 1.  But we'd then be scuppered if a real ARM-specific
>> st_type was defined in future.
>
> You also have STT_LOOS+1 and STT_LOOS+2.  That gives you three to
> choose from, and since this is internal only you can change between
> those values at will.  I think that's the way I'd go.

Hmm, OK.  If we're prepared to use the OS range in that way,
maybe we should use it from the outset, as a statement of intent.
Would it be OK to start with STT_LOOS+2, say as:

   #define STT_GNU_INTERNAL 12

and then:

   #define STT_GNU_ARM_TIFUNC STT_GNU_INTERNAL

?

ARM maintainers, do you have any preference between the two approaches
(symbol type vs. on-the-side information)?  For reference, the original
message was:

   http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2010-11/msg00475.html

Richard