lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Dec]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: linker-tables v5 testing
On Thu, 1 Dec 2016 16:04:30 +1100
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 19:15:27 -0800
> "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 6:51 PM, Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 18:38:16 +0100
> > > "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 02:09:47PM +1100, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
>
> > >> What is wrong with that ? Separating linker table and section ranges is
> > >
> > > It's not that you separate those, of course you need that. It's that
> > > you also separate other sections from the input section descriptions:
> > >
> > > - *(.text.hot .text .text.fixup .text.unlikely) \
> > > + *(.text.hot .text) \
> > > + *(SORT(.text.rng.*)) \
> > > + *(.text.fixup .text.unlikely) \

Ahh, you're doing it to avoid clash with compiler generated sections.
The usual way to cope with that seems to be to use two dots for your name.
.text..rng.*

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-12-01 06:22    [W:0.284 / U:0.032 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site