* Re: [hjl@lucon.org: Re: your patch to remove unused sections]
2005-04-11 14:44 ` [hjl@lucon.org: Re: your patch to remove unused sections] Alan Modra
@ 2005-04-11 14:55 ` H. J. Lu
2005-04-11 17:37 ` H. J. Lu
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: H. J. Lu @ 2005-04-11 14:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: binutils
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 12:13:56AM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 07:09:30AM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > Hi Alan,
> >
> > Have you looked at this patch?
>
> Yes, I was going to ask for a revision, but wanted to check whether my
> idea was feasible before asking you to make a change, which would remove
> the following loop:
>
> > + /* .bss and similar sections won't have the linker_mark
> > + field set. We have to check if its output section is
> > + included in output_bfd. */
> > + for (sec = output_bfd->sections; sec != NULL; sec = sec->next)
> > + if (sec == sym->section->output_section)
> > + break;
>
> I haven't had time to check, but here's the idea anyway: After removing
> an unused output section s with bfd_section_list_remove (output_bfd, s),
> clear s->next. Then
>
> if (sym->section->output_section->next == NULL
> && *output_bfd->section_tail != sym->section->output_section)
> {
> /* The section has been removed. */
> }
>
I will give it a try.
H.J.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: [hjl@lucon.org: Re: your patch to remove unused sections]
2005-04-11 14:44 ` [hjl@lucon.org: Re: your patch to remove unused sections] Alan Modra
2005-04-11 14:55 ` H. J. Lu
@ 2005-04-11 17:37 ` H. J. Lu
2005-04-11 22:16 ` Alan Modra
1 sibling, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: H. J. Lu @ 2005-04-11 17:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: binutils
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 12:13:56AM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 07:09:30AM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > Hi Alan,
> >
> > Have you looked at this patch?
>
> Yes, I was going to ask for a revision, but wanted to check whether my
> idea was feasible before asking you to make a change, which would remove
> the following loop:
>
> > + /* .bss and similar sections won't have the linker_mark
> > + field set. We have to check if its output section is
> > + included in output_bfd. */
> > + for (sec = output_bfd->sections; sec != NULL; sec = sec->next)
> > + if (sec == sym->section->output_section)
> > + break;
>
> I haven't had time to check, but here's the idea anyway: After removing
> an unused output section s with bfd_section_list_remove (output_bfd, s),
> clear s->next. Then
>
> if (sym->section->output_section->next == NULL
> && *output_bfd->section_tail != sym->section->output_section)
It should be
if (sym->section->output_section->next == NULL
&& output_bfd->section_tail != &sym->section->output_section->next)
> {
> /* The section has been removed. */
> }
This patch works for me.
H.J.
----
2005-04-11 H.J. Lu <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>
* linker.c (_bfd_generic_link_output_symbols): Also check if
the output section of an input section has been removed from
the output file.
* section.c (bfd_section_list_remove): Clear the next field
of the removed section.
(bfd_section_removed_from_list): New.
* bfd-in2.h: Regenerated.
--- bfd/linker.c.generic 2005-02-11 09:28:14.000000000 -0800
+++ bfd/linker.c 2005-04-11 09:47:58.000000000 -0700
@@ -2363,12 +2363,14 @@ _bfd_generic_link_output_symbols (bfd *o
abort ();
/* If this symbol is in a section which is not being included
- in the output file, then we don't want to output the symbol.
-
- Gross. .bss and similar sections won't have the linker_mark
- field set. */
- if ((sym->section->flags & SEC_HAS_CONTENTS) != 0
- && ! sym->section->linker_mark)
+ in the output file, then we don't want to output the
+ symbol. .bss and similar sections won't have the linker_mark
+ field set. We also check if its output section has been
+ removed from the output file. */
+ if (((sym->section->flags & SEC_HAS_CONTENTS) != 0
+ && ! sym->section->linker_mark)
+ || bfd_section_removed_from_list (output_bfd,
+ sym->section->output_section))
output = FALSE;
if (output)
--- bfd/section.c.generic 2005-03-03 08:56:09.000000000 -0800
+++ bfd/section.c 2005-04-11 10:25:52.573055557 -0700
@@ -546,6 +546,8 @@ CODE_FRAGMENT
. *_ps = _s->next; \
. if (_s->next == NULL) \
. (ABFD)->section_tail = _ps; \
+. else \
+. _s->next = NULL; \
. } \
. while (0)
.#define bfd_section_list_insert(ABFD, PS, S) \
@@ -559,6 +561,8 @@ CODE_FRAGMENT
. (ABFD)->section_tail = &_s->next; \
. } \
. while (0)
+.#define bfd_section_removed_from_list(ABFD, S) \
+. ((S)->next == NULL && &(S)->next != (ABFD)->section_tail)
.
*/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread