Re: [PATCH] Modules 3/3: Sort sections

Rusty Russell
2003-01-02T10:32:25Z

In message <20030101.211536.121172392.davem@redhat.com> you write:
> From: Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>
> Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 20:58:36 -0800
>
> On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 08:50:03PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
> > I think this is to get .foo.init sections.
>
> Obviously. Perhaps the question was worded badly. Instead read
> it as "Why don't we force this to be called .init.foo instead?"
>
> This new naming order was created recently, but I forget the reason.
> It used to be .init.foo

No, it used to be .foo.init, but -ffunction-sections calls its
functions <funcname>.init, so it was changed to .init.foo.

Of course, the simpler prefix test should now be sufficient.
Rusty.
--
Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.