From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Tue, 13 Apr 2004 20:43:43 +0100 (BST) Received: from ispmxmta05-srv.alltel.net ([IPv6:::ffff:166.102.165.166]:19140 "EHLO ispmxmta05-srv.alltel.net") by linux-mips.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 13 Apr 2004 20:43:42 +0100 Received: from lahoo.priv ([162.39.1.206]) by ispmxmta05-srv.alltel.net with ESMTP id <20040413194333.TPGI29083.ispmxmta05-srv.alltel.net@lahoo.priv>; Tue, 13 Apr 2004 14:43:33 -0500 Received: from prefect.priv ([10.1.1.141] helo=prefect) by lahoo.priv with smtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1BDTaZ-0006Ci-00; Tue, 13 Apr 2004 15:28:55 -0400 Message-ID: <02ea01c4218f$9ea240d0$8d01010a@prefect> From: "Bradley D. LaRonde" To: , "Thiemo Seufer" References: <028001c4218c$6d792350$8d01010a@prefect> <20040413193158.GO27939@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> Subject: Re: [PATCH] catch "new" gcc 3.4.0 sections Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 15:43:39 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 4772 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: brad@laronde.org Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thiemo Seufer" To: Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 3:31 PM Subject: Re: [PATCH] catch "new" gcc 3.4.0 sections > Bradley D. LaRonde wrote: > > Building with gcc 3.4.0 emits a couple new sections, .rodata.cst4 and > > .rodata.str1.4, which the current ld.script doesn't contemplate. Here is a > > patch to catch them (and maybe some other latent ones). > > > > Anyone know why or when these sections are emitted? > > I'd guess to keep differently aligned strings in separate sections, > as a preliminary for improved string merging. > > > Regards, > > Brad > > > > > > diff -u -r1.1.1.1 ld.script.in > > --- arch/mips/ld.script.in 10 Nov 2003 21:06:52 -0000 1.1.1.1 > > +++ arch/mips/ld.script.in 13 Apr 2004 19:18:25 -0000 > > @@ -11,6 +11,11 @@ > > *(.text) > > *(.rodata) > > *(.rodata1) > > + *(.rodata.str1.1); > > + *(.rodata.str1.4); > > + *(.rodata.str1.32); > > + *(.rodata.cst4); > > + *(.rodata.cst8); > > Why not just *(.rodata*); ? I dunno. There is already a tradition with .rodata and .rodata1 being listed separately. Maybe to spy on future gcc behavior? Regards, Brad From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <02ea01c4218f$9ea240d0$8d01010a@prefect> From: "Bradley D. LaRonde" References: <028001c4218c$6d792350$8d01010a@prefect> <20040413193158.GO27939@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> Subject: Re: [PATCH] catch "new" gcc 3.4.0 sections Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 15:43:39 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org To: linux-mips@linux-mips.org, Thiemo Seufer Message-ID: <20040413194339.VOzMfyACLZKHmoWBt-ni532np9vnpml6Sffkx5QtYmE@z> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thiemo Seufer" To: Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 3:31 PM Subject: Re: [PATCH] catch "new" gcc 3.4.0 sections > Bradley D. LaRonde wrote: > > Building with gcc 3.4.0 emits a couple new sections, .rodata.cst4 and > > .rodata.str1.4, which the current ld.script doesn't contemplate. Here is a > > patch to catch them (and maybe some other latent ones). > > > > Anyone know why or when these sections are emitted? > > I'd guess to keep differently aligned strings in separate sections, > as a preliminary for improved string merging. > > > Regards, > > Brad > > > > > > diff -u -r1.1.1.1 ld.script.in > > --- arch/mips/ld.script.in 10 Nov 2003 21:06:52 -0000 1.1.1.1 > > +++ arch/mips/ld.script.in 13 Apr 2004 19:18:25 -0000 > > @@ -11,6 +11,11 @@ > > *(.text) > > *(.rodata) > > *(.rodata1) > > + *(.rodata.str1.1); > > + *(.rodata.str1.4); > > + *(.rodata.str1.32); > > + *(.rodata.cst4); > > + *(.rodata.cst8); > > Why not just *(.rodata*); ? I dunno. There is already a tradition with .rodata and .rodata1 being listed separately. Maybe to spy on future gcc behavior? Regards, Brad