>> This is doable in asm, yes. For .bss, we need to not forget about
>> @nobits too: section .bss.foo,"aw",@nobits
>
> That's only for bss ... we have about a handful of such statements and
> they always use the assembler .bss directive (which doesn't need flags).
>
>> > Actually, as I said, that would be .data-
You are right, in assembly we can specify needed attributes.
I am more concerned about C:
arch/x86/include/asm/cache.h:
#define __read_mostly __attribute__((__section__(".data..read_mostly")))
If we change it to
#define __read_mostly __attribute__((__section__(".data-read_mostly")))
What makes this section have correct attributes?
With current gcc, __attribute__((__section__(".bss-page_aligned")))
does get wrong attributes. That's why we settled on .bss..foo
scheme.
> I thought I just refuted that in the above: we don't care what the
> assembler sections are flagged as because the linker script gets to pick
> the flags anyway ... so most bugs arrived at this way have no visible
> side effects ... and section merging problems have to be accounted for
> anyway in the final linker scripts.
When I was working on a older iteration of this patch,
I renamed .bss.page_aligned to .page_aligned.bss
and was bitten by linker bug: linker tried to merge
the sections and corrupted them.
Aha, here is it:
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5006
It was since fixed, and if I read the ld patch correctly,
now ld emits a warning and switches entire target section
to PROGBITS - not what we want to happen to bss.
--
vda
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-parisc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
