On Wed, 4 Nov 2020, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 10:09 AM Hans-Peter Nilsson <h...@bitrange.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 4 Nov 2020, Jozef Lawrynowicz wrote: > > > I personally do not see the problem with the .retain attribute, however > > > if it is going to be a barrier to getting the functionality committed, I > > > am happy to change it, since I really just want the functionality in > > > upstream sources. > > > > > > If a global maintainer would comment on whether any of the proposed > > > approaches are acceptable, then I will try to block out time from other > > > deadlines so I can work on the fixups and submit a patch in time for the > > > GCC 11 freeze. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Jozef > > > > I'm not much more than a random voice, but an assembly directive > > that specifies the symbol (IIUC your .retain directive) to > > But .retain directive DOES NOT adjust symbol attribute. Instead, it sets > the SHF_GNU_RETAIN bit on the section which contains the symbol > definition. The same section can have many unrelated symbols.
That's an implementation detail *left to the assembler and linker*. It's not something the compiler needs to know, and teoretically it could even change. > > adjust a symbol attribute sounds cleaner to me, than requiring > > gcc to know that this requires it to adjust what it knows about > > section flags (again, IIUC). > > > > brgds, H-P > > > > -- > H.J. >
