------- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-01-07
13:47 -------
(In reply to comment #7)
> Imagine someone who wants an array of functions (perhaps constructor like) or
> some other object used in their app. They set up weak references in a named
> section, then access the array using the __start_* symbol. The array itself
> isn't referenced so references there don't cause the functions to be kept.
> Oh.. My array won't be kept either. I didn't think of that earlier.. Hmm,
> the
> named section would need to be a debug section, and then it doesn't matter if
> there is a change in the way __start_* affects --gc-sections.
>
> So my concern that HJ's idea might affect some existing app is probably not
> valid. I still don't particularly like a reference to __start_somesection
> meaning that we should keep all "somesection" input sections. It would be
> better if there were a more explicit way to mark input sections. I also note
> that HJ's patch is incorrect since marking a section with gc_mark and
> returning
> NULL from gc_mark_hook will result in no mark phase recursion for that
> section.
I will try a different approach.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |hjl dot tools at gmail dot
| |com
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11133
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
_______________________________________________
bug-binutils mailing list
bug-binutils@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
