[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201007260331.34372.vda.linux@googlemail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 03:31:34 +0200
From: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>
To: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
Cc: Tim Abbott <tabbott@...lice.com>, Tim Bird <tim.bird@...sony.com>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
Parisc List <linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Testing of function/data-sections on linux-2.6.35-rc4
Hi Sam,
On Friday 23 July 2010 22:35, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> >
> > Then, in order to also garbage-collect the sections, I added
> >
> > LDFLAGS_vmlinux += --gc-sections
> >
> > in top-level Makefile.
> >
> > This requires the additional patch (linux-2.6.35-rc4-fsgs.patch)
> > which adds KEEP(section) directives to kernel linker stripts.
> > Otherwise, linker will discard some crucial sections.
> >
>
> Changelog does not address why you need:
>
> -Map $@...map
>
> and what effect they have.
I didn't plan to push the last step (--gc-sections) to mainline yet.
Thus the patch has debugging stuff in it.
> And it is obvious that some archs should consolidate a little more from
> asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h.
> But that said this patch looks much better than the initial versions posted.
>
> How do you determine which sections needs the KEEP()?
> Worth documenting for future when we add new sections.
No problem, I will be adding comments at every KEEP() why it's needed.
--
vda
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists