On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <i...@google.com> wrote: > "H. Peter Anvin" <h...@zytor.com> writes: > >> On 12/07/2010 04:20 PM, Andi Kleen wrote: >>> >>> The only problem left is mixing of lto and non lto objects. this right >>> now is not handled. IMHO still the best way to handle it is to use >>> slim lto and then simply separate link the "left overs" after deleting >>> the LTO objects. This can be actually done with objcopy (with some >>> limitations), doesn't even need linker support. >>> >> >> Quite possibly a better way to deal with that is to provide a mechanism >> for encapsulating arbitrary binary code objects inside the LTO IR. > > And when we use a special section name, using an unprintable name is > needlessly painful and will make it hard to play convenient games with > objcopy. Just use a printable name starting with .gnu. > > (This assumes that we do need a special section, rather than, say, a > note.)
Section works for non-ELF system. How about .gnu_object_only section and with SHT_GNU_OBJECT_ONLY type on ELF? -- H.J.
