Re: rationale for bss patterns in default_section_type_flags ?

[Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>]

On Friday, June 10, 2005, at 05:03  PM, Brett Porter wrote:
> So there is no documented standard involved.

Actually I do believe that some of the standards are documented, but, I 
don't happen to have pointers to exactly which ones.

> > > > No, the standard is to be prefix based, this simplifies the impact 
> > > > on
> > > > the linker scripts.
> > >
> > > Ok. So a new category of bss sections could be matched by
> > > "X.bss" or "X.bss."*.  Would that be reasonable?
> >
> > _prefix_, not suffix.  No.  You'd first have to explain why the
> > existing standard of prefix can't be made to work I think.  .bss.X
> > would be the convention to use.
>
> "X.bss" would be the prefix

Oh, I get it, sorry, there are some languages (prolog among them as I 
recall), where capitolized letters mean something else entirely.  I 
thought you meant the regular expression .*.bss, where .* is the 
routine name, or something akin to that.  .xbss would be the more 
traditional style name.

> (like .sbss and .gnu.linkonce.b. that is not included in any .bss.* 
> wildcard patterns in a linker script.

Technically, I suspect most do not do that (yet).  If the intent to to 
exclude it from .bss.*, then, I agree with you, choosing a different 
prefix would be wise.   I was specifically trying to get it to prefix 
match .bss!  :-)

> The situation is: in an embedded system, certain
> variables are placed in .persistent.bss

Sounds like a fine name.  Why not just use that name?