[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86: clean up
On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 11:16:57AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> >>
> >>> Why do we need *(.data .data.*) rather than *(.data*)?
> >>> *(.dynbss*)?
> >> I don't have any strong opinion here, but the former is exactly what the
> >> default linker script has.
> >
> > My general take on this is that we should know and deal with what the linker produces.
> > So if we only expect .data then .data.* could go into .broken so we catch it.
> >
> That will break if we change to per-function sections.

But adding it to .broken would catch this at first build which would
have told us so.
We shall try to make it -ffunction-sections compatible in first try though.


 \ /
  Last update: 2009-06-09 21:23    [W:0.034 / U:3.508 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site