Re: [PATCH v4] PR30592 objcopy: allow --set-section-flags to add or remove SHF_X86_64_LARGE

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>]

On 08.07.2023 07:30, Fangrui Song via Binutils wrote:
> --- a/bfd/section.c
> +++ b/bfd/section.c
> @@ -359,6 +359,9 @@ CODE_FRAGMENT
>  .     TMS320C54X only.  *}
>  .#define SEC_TIC54X_BLOCK           0x10000000
>  .
> +.  {* This section has the SHF_X86_64_LARGE flag.  This is ELF x86-64 only.  *}
> +.#define SEC_ELF_LARGE              0x10000000
> +.
>  .  {* Conditionally link this section; do not link if there are no
>  .     references found to any symbol in the section.  This is for TI
>  .     TMS320C54X only.  *}
> @@ -2618,7 +2621,7 @@ merge_gnu_build_notes (bfd *          abfd,
>  }
>  
>  static flagword
> -check_new_section_flags (flagword flags, bfd * abfd, const char * secname)
> +check_new_section_flags (flagword flags, bfd *abfd, const char * secname)

Nit: Stray (and inconsistent) change?

> @@ -2631,6 +2634,19 @@ check_new_section_flags (flagword flags, bfd * abfd, const char * secname)
>  		 bfd_get_filename (abfd), secname);
>        flags &= ~ SEC_COFF_SHARED;
>      }
> +
> +  /* Report a fatal error if 'large' is used with a non-x86-64 ELF target.
> +     Suppress the error for non-ELF targets to allow -O binary and formats that
> +     use the bit value SEC_ELF_LARGE for other purposes.  */
> +  if ((flags & SEC_ELF_LARGE) != 0
> +      && bfd_get_flavour (abfd) == bfd_target_elf_flavour
> +      && get_elf_backend_data (abfd)->elf_machine_code != EM_X86_64)

DYM

  if ((flags & SEC_ELF_LARGE) != 0
      && (bfd_get_flavour (abfd) != bfd_target_elf_flavour
	  || get_elf_backend_data (abfd)->elf_machine_code != EM_X86_64))

?

Jan

> +    {
> +      fatal (_ ("%s[%s]: 'large' flag is ELF x86-64 specific"),
> +	     bfd_get_filename (abfd), secname);
> +      flags &= ~SEC_ELF_LARGE;
> +    }
> +
>    return flags;
>  }
>