From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 1C2323987C39; Fri, 22 Jan 2021 00:57:38 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 1C2323987C39
From: "segher at kernel dot crashing.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/95095] Feature request: support -fno-unique-section-names
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2021 00:57:37 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: unknown
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: segher at kernel dot crashing.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-95095-4-Mu6OQzI7mx@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-95095-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-95095-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2021 00:57:38 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D95095

--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool <segher at kernel dot crashing.org> =
---
On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 09:00:56PM +0000, i at maskray dot me wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D95095
>=20
> --- Comment #3 from Fangrui Song <i at maskray dot me> ---
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #2)
> > Can't we use ".text%name" for -ffunction-sections, like we did original=
ly,
> > in 1996?  See cf4403481dd6.  This does not conflict with other section
> > names, and does not have all the problems you get from doing anything t=
hat
> > is not a simple prefix.
>=20
> A function named 'foo' compiles to '.text%foo'? It might have been better=
 to
> avoid conflicts with '.text.startup' '.text.hot' etc but now such a change
> would just inconvenience users (think of various Linux kernel linker scri=
pt
> fragments).

The conflicts that show up from time to time *also* inconvenience users,
and that is an ongoing inconvenience.

> .text%name does not address -fno-unique-section-names.

And neither does ".text.name.".

Something like this is a prerequisite of such an option.

Also, please use a different name, one that does not start with "no-"?
It isn't about unique names at all anyway, it is about having multiple
sections with the same name (that then can get separately GCed, because
of new linker features).


Segher=