[Bug 1001142] User defined linker sections.

[bugzilla-daemon@bugs.ecos.sourceware.org]

Please do not reply to this email. Use the web interface provided at:
http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1001142

--- Comment #24 from Ilija Kocho <ilijak@siva.com.mk> 2011-02-15 22:37:53 GMT ---
(In reply to comment #23)
> Hi
> 
> (In reply to comment #22)
> > Sometimes the solution is doing nothing or next to nothing.
> 
> Fortunately, it happens sometimes.
> 
> > Since method for production of section boundaries is fixed,
> > straight-forward and common (for all sections): __<section_name>_start
> > __<section_name>_end, it could be documented (possibly within
> > http://ecos.sourceware.org/docs-latest/ref/hal- linker-scripts.html )
> > with some code snippet for zeroing of section.
> > 
> > I guess USER_SECTION() would need a proper documentation anyway.
> 
> Honestly, I could not grasp why you need START/END macros (then you have
> convinced me). The first picture in my head was. A HAL/MLT designer (not
> CT user) using USER_SECTION macro "describes" a few random access memory
> regions for new CPU.  For example, 'mem1', 'mem2', 'mem3' sections. This
> HAL/MLT designer provides and a support to init (clear) the regions, so,
> he/she knows the names.  It is clear to him/her to use __mem1_start,
> __mem1_end, etc. as external labels (he/she knows what USER_SECTION()
> macro is).  He/she is the HAL designer.  Then if they want they can
> provide via CDL rules a few choices for CT user, for example, to obtain
> some rooms in one from a few (one from from one) section (I mean a choice
> the values are allowed by our designer), i.e. with CDL func. legal_values
> { mem1 mem2 mem3 }, I dislike an idea to allow CT user to name the
> sections and "to code" in C/CPP using "complex" macros. But, this is mine.
> 
> So, we can stay on USER_SECTION() innovation only. What your verdict be?
> Will HAL/MLT designer be happy with it? As for me I like this rollback.

Yea, that's it, I sometimes reach for more generality than practice needs.
Sorry for confusion and thank you for your patience.
I hope that HAL/MLT designers shall be happy, but even if someone convinces us
that life without them is impossible (which is unlikely) it would be possible
re-introduce them without breaking backward compatibility since for plain (non
macro) names they have no effect.

Now I agree with you to omit START/END macros.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.