Re: [PATCH] ld: Don't define section symbols for excluded sections
Project / Subsystem
binutils / ld
Date
2026-07-31
Proposer
Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Source type
public_inbox
Consensus
Proposed
Sentiment
—/10
Technical tradeoffs
- • Balancing the definition of section symbols with linker exclusion rules.
- • Ensuring clarity and accuracy in commit messages describing code changes.
- • Maintaining code quality by minimizing churn and unnecessary complexity.
All attributes
- project
- binutils
- subsystem
- ld
- patch_id
- —
- discussion_id
- e0baca3d-8099-449e-a282-f2d3e8f4c28b@suse.com
- source_type
- public_inbox
- title
- Re: [PATCH] ld: Don't define section symbols for excluded sections
- headline
- ld: Don't define section symbols for excluded sections
- tldr
- Reviewer suggests adding 'only' to clarify a patch's intent and criticizes code churn and indentation.
- proposer
- Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
- consensus
- Proposed
- outcome
- proposed
- sentiment_score
- —
- technical_tradeoffs
-
- • Balancing the definition of section symbols with linker exclusion rules.
- • Ensuring clarity and accuracy in commit messages describing code changes.
- • Maintaining code quality by minimizing churn and unnecessary complexity.
- series_id
- —
- series_role
- standalone
- series_parts
- []
- tags
-
- • binutils
- • ld
- • linker
- • sections
- • review
- bugzilla_url
- —
- date
- 2026-07-31T00:00:00.000Z
Re: [PATCH] ld: Don't define section symbols for excluded sections
Jan Beulich reviews a patch that modifies how section symbols (__start, __stop, etc.) are defined for excluded sections in the ld linker. He suggests that the patch’s description should explicitly state that it’s introducing an additional constraint rather than defining symbols anew. Beulich also expresses dissatisfaction with the churn and increased indentation depth in the modified code.