This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: xfail gcc.dg test
On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 03:00:40PM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 08:30:19PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> > No, I'm not renaming the .text *section*, just sneakily renaming the
> > .text section *symbol*. Same for .data, .bss etc.
> Please don't. At present, one can use the section symbol and the
> section name interchangably. For _any_ section, not just those
> predefined by the gABI. Changing this would be extremely confusing.
> Much much worse than differing the code symbol between xcoff and elf.
How often do you reference a section symbol? Not very often. And I'm
proposing the change for all sections, not just predefined ones. Thus
"some_arbitrary_section" has ".some_arbitrary_section" as its section
symbol on powerpc64-linux. There's even some consistency with branch
and link to ".foo" when you want to call function "foo".
Hmm, a better idea. If we are going to change the ABI, then it would
be nice to get rid of those dot symbols entirely, replacing them with
a local symbol. The linker already translates "bl .foo" when linking
dynamic objects, to a stub that uses the opd entry for foo. We could
do a similar trick when linking statically, ie. "bl foo" (new scheme
would reference the opd sym) gets translated to "bl <address in opd
entry>". The impact on the toolchain will only be marginally more
than the change to use "..foo", and removes our major kludge.
IBM OzLabs - Linux Technology Centre