http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12565
--- Comment #14 from Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com> 2011-07-01 00:03:38 UTC --- On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 03:37:43PM +0100, Nick Clifton wrote: > Hi H.J., Hi Alan, > > I have been looking at PR 12565, and I have to say that I do not > understand the linker's behaviour for NOLOAD sections on ELF based > targets. What is the point of having a section that cannot be > loaded and that does not have any contents ? > > Also, as far as I can see, this behaviour is not documented > anywhere. Do you know of any applications that rely upon this > feature ? I spent quite a lot of time wrestling with NOLOAD before http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2010-09/msg00245.html. I believe we have fairly strong historical precedent for the current behaviour on ELF, ie. that NOLOAD makes a .bss style section, noload, alloc, no contents. As others have replied, people make use of it this way. See also http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2010-10/msg00433.html -- Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils