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 16146388A410; Sat, 16 Jan 2021 21:00:57 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 16146388A410
From: "i at maskray dot me" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/95095] Feature request: support -fno-unique-section-names
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2021 21:00:56 +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: i at maskray dot me
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-zbEFpB4WMW@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: Sat, 16 Jan 2021 21:00:57 -0000

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

--- 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 originally,
> in 1996?  See cf4403481dd6.  This does not conflict with other section
> names, and does not have all the problems you get from doing anything that
> is not a simple prefix.

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 script
fragments).

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