Re: Comments requested for proposed for ld scripting language extension

[Tristan Gingold <gingold@adacore.com>]

On May 3, 2011, at 10:44 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:

> Tristan Gingold <gingold@adacore.com> writes:
>> I also think that you could make the design a little bit generic and
>> allow boolean negation.  What about something like:
> 
> Sounds good, but...
> 
>> 
>> .text : FLAGS (-SHF_PPC_VLE)
>> {
>>   *(.text .text.* .gnu.linkonce.t.*)
>> } >ram
>> .text_vle : FLAGS (+SHF_PPC_VLE)
>> {
>>   *(.text .text.* .gnu.linkonce.t.*)
>> } >ram
> 
> ...how about using C operators (SHF_PPC_VLE and !SHF_PPC_VLE) instead?
> That'd be more consistent with other script expressions.

Sure.

>> Finally I wonder if the flags shouldn't be in the input section part,
>> in order to make this feature even more generic:
>> 
>> .text : 
>> {
>>   *(.text .text.* .gnu.linkonce.t.*) FLAGS (-SHF_PPC_VLE)
>> } >ram
> 
> While this might be useful in some cases, I think Catherine's version
> is going to make the usual case easier.  FWIW, I agree with Alan that
> it fits nicely with the existing ONLY_IF_* constraints.
> 
> Richard