Re: linker-tables v5 testing

[Nicholas Piggin]

On Thu, 1 Dec 2016 16:04:30 +1100
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 19:15:27 -0800
> "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 6:51 PM, Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 18:38:16 +0100
> > > "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >  
> > >> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 02:09:47PM +1100, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> 
> > >> What is wrong with that ? Separating linker table and section ranges is  
> > >
> > > It's not that you separate those, of course you need that. It's that
> > > you also separate other sections from the input section descriptions:
> > >
> > > -               *(.text.hot .text .text.fixup .text.unlikely)           \
> > > +               *(.text.hot .text)                                      \
> > > +               *(SORT(.text.rng.*))                                    \
> > > +               *(.text.fixup .text.unlikely)                           \

Ahh, you're doing it to avoid clash with compiler generated sections.
The usual way to cope with that seems to be to use two dots for your name.
.text..rng.*