Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] Make section names compatible with -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections

[Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>]

On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 10:10:38PM -0400, Tim Abbott wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Apr 2009, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> 
> > This patch touches far too many files.
> > We should try to work out a method so we are in better control
> > of the section names, so renaming in the end is a simple patch
> > touching only a few files.
> 
> OK, I'm now planning to implement this approach.
> 
> > > -.section .text.head, "ax"
> > > +.section .text..head, "ax"
> > 
> > Use __HEAD (from include/linux/init.h)
> > Same goes for all other uses of .text.head.
> 
> I notice that __HEAD uses .head.text, while some architectures use 
> .text.head.  It looks like this is just an inconsistency across 
> architectures that will be removed as a consequence of this cleanup work 
> (no architecture uses both .head.text and .text.head).
Correct - this is implied by the introduction of __HEAD.
For users of the old naming schme (like i386) you need to adjust the
linker script too.

> One challenge with this approach is that many linker scripts use these 
> section names in more complex ways than just squashing HEAD_TEXT at the 
> start of the text section.  For example, the the linker scripts for x86 
> and ia64 have code like:
> 
>   .text.head : AT(ADDR(.text.head) - LOAD_OFFSET) {
>         _text = .;                      /* Text and read-only data */
>         *(.text.head)
>   } :text = 0x9090
> 
> which can't user either the __HEAD macro (which is the full .section line) 
> or the HEAD_TEXT macro (which is the *(.head.text)).

The simple way to deal wi8th this is to accept some duplication of naming
in order to keep readability.
So I suggest you to use:

  .head.text : AT(ADDR(.head.text) - LOAD_OFFSET) {
        _text = .;                      /* Text and read-only data */
        HEAD_TEXT
  } :text = 0x9090

We need to be carefull about keeping some sort of readability
of these linker macro files.

I was not specific in my last mail about this - but I assume you have
understood that the naming ".head.text" was selected so it is compatible
wiht -ffunction-sections. In other words no need for any ugly ".." here.

We should try to be as consistent as possible across architectures here
so it is better to toach a few additiona files rather than adding macros
and the like to accept there sub-optimal section naming.

	Sam