Re: [PATCH] Updated RDOS support

["H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>]

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:51 PM, Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 09:43:16PM +0100, Leif Ekblad wrote:
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Modra" <amodra@gmail.com>
>> >Why should $LARGE_DATA_ADDR affect $OTHER_BSS_SECTIONS?  Hmm, I see
>> >LARGE_SECTIONS=yes adds .lbss to OTHER_BSS_SECTIONS.  That's not very
>> >nice as quite a few targets use OTHER_BSS_SECTIONS for other purposes.
>> >Your patch makes this even more confusing.  Also, since you seem to
>> >want a separate large segment, do you really want to lay out your
>> >large sections as .lbss, .lrodata, .ldata?  Wouldn't .lrodata, .ldata,
>> >.lbss make more sense?
>>
>> Yes, absolutely. If the lbss area is large it will also increase
>> executable size for no reason.
>> But, shouldn't this be the order regardless of LARGE_DATA_ADDR setting? This
>> seems like a bug.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
> I don't know why the existing scripts put .lbss first.  The patch
> adding x86_64 support for large sections is here:
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-07/msg00407.html
> Prior to that, hppa64 had a huge bss section placed more or less in
> the same location but no large data or rodata section as far as I
> know.
>

It was done on purpose so that we may put ldata and lbss sections n the
same segnment as bss/data sections.

-- 
H.J.