https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95095
--- Comment #9 from Fangrui Song ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #8)
> I say nothing like that. I say that
> .text.hot.
> is nasty (is easily mistaken for .text.hot).
>
> I also say that and that named-per-function sections a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95095
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I say nothing like that. I say that
.text.hot.
is nasty (is easily mistaken for .text.hot).
I also say that and that named-per-function sections are better as
.text%name
than as
.text.name
(just
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95095
--- Comment #7 from Fangrui Song ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #6)
> I was under the impression this unique section thing needed the trailing
> dot thing. This probably is not true.
>
> I still think the old "%" thing is much
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95095
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I was under the impression this unique section thing needed the trailing
dot thing. This probably is not true.
I still think the old "%" thing is much superior to the trailing dot thing,
but that then
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95095
--- Comment #5 from Fangrui Song ---
Linux kernel
include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h currently has
#define TEXT_TEXT \
ALIGN_FUNCTION(); \
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95095
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 09:00:56PM +, i at maskray dot me wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95095
>
> --- Comment #3 from Fangrui Song ---
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95095
--- Comment #3 from Fangrui Song ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #2)
> Can't we use ".text%name" for -ffunction-sections, like we did originally,
> in 1996? See cf4403481dd6. This does not conflict with other section
> names, a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95095
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Can't we use ".text%name" for -ffunction-sections, like we did originally,
in 1996? See cf4403481dd6. This does not conflict with other section
names, and does not have all the problems you get from do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95095
--- Comment #1 from Fangrui Song ---
I just learned that `int main() {}` compiles to .text.startup in -O2 or -Os
It seems that .text.startup. may be better to not accidentally move a C
function named `startup` (`startup.` is not a valid C identi
