http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12565
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Larmour <jifl-bugzilla at jifvik dot org> 2011-07-01 08:57:41 UTC --- (In reply to comment #14) > > 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. But before H.J.'s change in bug #5522 it did include contents, which is why I reported this change of behaviour in the first place, so I'm not sure what you mean about the precedent. The documented behaviour was to include contents prior to your (and H.J.'s) change. I hadn't noticed your change before as I've only been using 2.20.1 which doesn't include it. > As others have replied, people make use of it this way. We have made use of it with contents, as per the documentation. If you want something that doesn't include contents, wouldn't it be better to make a new output section type rather than changing the behaviour of an existing one? Otherwise it could be confusing. If you want something different from the previous behaviour of NOLOAD it would be better to remove NOLOAD so people can decide what they want to do with their linker scripts once they see the error. Personally, I had thought when I submitted this bug that I had found an isolated instance, but it turns out there are a bunch of linker scripts floating around my company which rely on NOLOAD's old behaviour. libgloss currently relies on it including contents too. Jifl -- 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
