From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <binutils-return-71489-listarch-binutils=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 24570 invoked by alias); 3 May 2011 08:44:20 -0000
Received: (qmail 24560 invoked by uid 22791); 3 May 2011 08:44:19 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail-ww0-f43.google.com (HELO mail-ww0-f43.google.com) (74.125.82.43)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 May 2011 08:44:05 +0000
Received: by wwb17 with SMTP id 17so5769235wwb.12        for <binutils@sourceware.org>; Tue, 03 May 2011 01:44:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.227.36.212 with SMTP id u20mr3509930wbd.35.1304412243842;        Tue, 03 May 2011 01:44:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from richards-thinkpad (gbibp9ph1--blueice2n1.emea.ibm.com [195.212.29.75])        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z9sm2010617wbx.51.2011.05.03.01.44.02        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);        Tue, 03 May 2011 01:44:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@linaro.org>
To: Tristan Gingold <gingold@adacore.com>
Mail-Followup-To: Tristan Gingold <gingold@adacore.com>,Catherine Moore <clm@codesourcery.com>,  binutils@sourceware.org, richard.sandiford@linaro.org
Cc: Catherine Moore <clm@codesourcery.com>,  binutils@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: Comments requested for proposed for ld scripting language extension
References: <4DB99A38.1010801@codesourcery.com>	<0AE7F26B-5214-479E-8B71-68CDE3A31511@adacore.com>
Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 08:44:00 -0000
In-Reply-To: <0AE7F26B-5214-479E-8B71-68CDE3A31511@adacore.com> (Tristan	Gingold's message of "Fri, 29 Apr 2011 09:35:03 +0200")
Message-ID: <g4oc3kxjfz.fsf@linaro.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <binutils.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:binutils-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/>
List-Post: <mailto:binutils@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:binutils-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-05/txt/msg00028.txt.bz2

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.

> 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