Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> I'm pretty certain we explicitly drop the weird GNU note that
> is automatically generated by gcc and specifies something informational.
>
But that's something else again, since it appears as a PT_GNU_STACK phdr.
> I don't think anything we are doing is wrong but ld gets confused easily
> in the corner cases. I'm modestly surprised we didn't have to mark our
> .note.xxx scions as ".section .note.xxx @note" or whatever the proper
> gas syntax is.
I did try that, and it didn't make a difference. The manual says that
the output section type follows the input section type, so I agree its a
bit surprising we ever get a SHT_NOTE out of it without the @note stuff.
J
