> Ultimately, people just pick names. Once picked, they form crystal > clear standards.
So there is no documented standard involved. > >> 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 (like .sbss and .gnu.linkonce.b. in default_section_type_flags_1) and the desire is have a .bss-like section with a difference, that is not included in any .bss.* wildcard patterns in a linker script. The situation is: in an embedded system, certain variables are placed in .persistent.bss (name is not our choice :( ); upon an initial load the section is zeroed just like .bss; there are conditions where the program is restarted but the loader will not zero this section (in battery-backed RAM) during the restart. The easiest implementation would be to add || strcmp (name, ".persistent.bss") == 0 to the list in default_section_type_flags_1 and it doesn't seem likely that .persistent.bss should not have SECTION_BSS set?) Of course, it would only be used in a system where the linker and loader are prepared for it. Brett
