Sam Ravnborg wrote: > On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 09:33:13AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> Tim Abbott wrote: >>> On Fri, 1 May 2009, Sam Ravnborg wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 03:54:08PM -0400, Tim Abbott wrote: >>>>> +#define __PAGE_ALIGNED_DATA .section ".data.page_aligned", "aw", @progbits >>>>> +#define __PAGE_ALIGNED_BSS .section ".bss.page_aligned", "aw", @nobits >>>> It is my understanding that the linker will automatically >>>> assume nobits for section names starting with .bss and likewise >>>> progbits for section names starting with .data - so we can leave them out? >>> I believe that is correct. >>> >> ... but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. >> >> It's better to be fully explicit when macroizing this kind of stuff. >> This is part of why macroizing it is good: it means we end up with *one* >> place that determines this stuff, not some magic heuristics in the linker. > > Do you know if we can use % in place of @? > I could see that gas supports both - at least in trunk in cvs. > I think it might depend on the architecture(!)... but it would definitely have to be an issue with testing a bunch of different versions. What's wrong with @? -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
