From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12327 invoked by alias); 23 Aug 2006 01:55:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 12191 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Aug 2006 01:55:33 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from omta03sl.mx.bigpond.com (HELO omta03sl.mx.bigpond.com) (144.140.92.155) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 23 Aug 2006 01:55:31 +0000 Received: from grove.modra.org ([60.226.255.233]) by omta03sl.mx.bigpond.com with ESMTP id <20060823015524.OPJM2500.omta03sl.mx.bigpond.com@grove.modra.org>; Wed, 23 Aug 2006 01:55:24 +0000 Received: by bubble.grove.modra.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 594301ECF88; Wed, 23 Aug 2006 11:25:24 +0930 (CST) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 02:58:00 -0000 From: Alan Modra To: "H. J. Lu" Cc: binutils@sourceware.org Subject: Re: ld lma assignment Message-ID: <20060823015524.GC3190@bubble.grove.modra.org> Mail-Followup-To: "H. J. Lu" , binutils@sourceware.org References: <20060726050914.GK6872@bubble.grove.modra.org> <20060822073344.GB23819@bubble.grove.modra.org> <20060822184648.GA5803@lucon.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060822184648.GA5803@lucon.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-08/txt/msg00254.txt.bz2 On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 11:46:48AM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote: > On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 05:03:44PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote: > > Fixes doco for this change, and warns on backward movement of VMA > > unless accompanied with an explicit LMA assignment. I guess I should > > have added the news item when I committed the first patch to raise > > awareness of the change in default lma. Apologies for that, I wasn't > > trying to slip a change in under the radar! I still feel it's a good > > change for 2.18, one that shouldn't affect too many scripts, and those > > that it does are easily fixed. > > I tried AT (.). It seems to generate different outputs comparing with > the old linker. AT(ADDR(section_name)) is probably better. AT(.) ignores section alignment requirements. -- Alan Modra IBM OzLabs - Linux Technology Centre