https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95095
--- Comment #9 from Fangrui Song <i at maskray dot me> --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #8) > I say nothing like that. I say that > .text.hot. > is nasty (is easily mistaken for .text.hot). > > I also say that and that named-per-function sections are better as > .text%name > than as > .text.name > (just as they were long ago), because this doesn't conflict with things like > .text.hot > (and there is a very long history of such conflicts giving real-world > problems). .text%name and .text.hot%name will break existing output section descriptions for .text My scheme .text.% .text.hot.% is backward compatible.
