On Friday, June 10, 2005, at 05:03 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
So there is no documented standard involved.
Actually I do believe that some of the standards are documented, but, I
don't happen to have pointers to exactly which ones.
No, the standard is to be prefix based, this simplifies the impact
on
the linker scripts.
Ok. So a new category of bss sections could be matched by
"X.bss" or "X.bss."*. Would that be reasonable?
_prefix_, not suffix. No. You'd first have to explain why the
existing standard of prefix can't be made to work I think. .bss.X
would be the convention to use.
"X.bss" would be the prefix
Oh, I get it, sorry, there are some languages (prolog among them as I
recall), where capitolized letters mean something else entirely. I
thought you meant the regular expression .*.bss, where .* is the
routine name, or something akin to that. .xbss would be the more
traditional style name.
(like .sbss and .gnu.linkonce.b. that is not included in any .bss.*
wildcard patterns in a linker script.
Technically, I suspect most do not do that (yet). If the intent to to
exclude it from .bss.*, then, I agree with you, choosing a different
prefix would be wise. I was specifically trying to get it to prefix
match .bss! :-)
The situation is: in an embedded system, certain
variables are placed in .persistent.bss
Sounds like a fine name. Why not just use that name?
