Re: [RFC] Add __initbss section

[Franck Bui-Huu <vagabon.xyz@gmail.com>]

Ralf Baechle wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 11:52:30AM +0200, Franck Bui-Huu wrote:
> 
>> Other question: I noticed that the exit.data section is not
>> discarded. Could anybody give me the reason why ?
> 
> .exit.data and .exit.text may reference each other.  __exit functions
> generally get compiled into .exit.text but some constructs such as jump
> tables for switch() constructs may be compiled into address tables which
> gcc unfortunately will put into .rodata, so .rodata will end up
> referencing function addresses in .exit.text which makes ld unhappy if
> .exit.text was discarded.  So until this is fixed in gcc we can't
> discard exit code, unfortunately.
> 

Thanks for the details.

I actually don't see any point to move these tables in .rodata since
they're part of the code...

> It's actually an issue which doesn't strike very often, so users who are
> desparate for shrinking the kernel down could try to undo patchsets:
> 
>   6f0b1e5d266fb1d0da019c07b56ccc02c3a4f53a
>   ca7402fed2a76cd5a417ac4d375a5539dcb2b6de
> 
> and see if they can get away with it.  If the final kernel link succeeds,
> the build would be ok.
> 
> I think gcc should probably put the jump table into a .subsection if
> a section was explicitly requested, at least for non-PIC code.
> 

yes that would be great, and do the same for strings, data and we could
get rid of all __initxxx annotations.

		Franck