[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       binutils
Subject:    Re: Effect of the AT instruction
From:       V S <vsiles83 () gmail ! com>
Date:       2017-12-20 12:46:24
Message-ID: CABQZ-z0tiYq-X0NsFi1JVZ_FyvaBU+MSuy8jDYPiQ75Cm_D_9g () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

I see. The case for NOLOAD section is still a bit fuzzy, but I think I'll
take more coffee then.

Thank you for your help !
V.

2017-12-20 12:45 GMT+01:00 Erik Christiansen <dvalin@internode.on.net>:

> On 20.12.17 09:01, V S wrote:
> > Hi !
> > I'm trying to understand clearly the behavior of the AT instruction (see
> [1]).
> > From my understanding, if I don't specify any AT or AT> to a region,
> > its LMA will be equal to its VMA. However in practice, it seems that
> > once I used AT once, the next LMA will be also affected by it, even if
> > I don't recall it.
> ...
> > Could anyone confirm that, or point me to the right documentation to
> > understand what's really happening ?
>
> With enough coffee, and a look at the list post cited below, maybe your
> reference will do it:
>
> ...
> > [1] https://sourceware.org/binutils/docs/ld/Output-Section-LMA.html
>
> The third bullet point under the first heading, "3.6.8.2 Output Section
> LMA", pretty much describes the behaviour, ISTM. As neither of your
> output sections specified a VMA, and they're allocatable, the first
> two bullet points don't apply.
>
> This list post gives the timing of the change in behaviour, AIUI:
> https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2008-03/msg00179.html
>
> Erik
>
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]