Re: [PATCH] x86/boot: Fix build with LLVM toolchain

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 05.11.2024 17:35, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2024 at 3:32 PM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 05.11.2024 15:55, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
>>> This toolchain generates different object and map files.
>>> Account for these changes.
>>
>> At least briefly mentioning what exactly the differences are would be
>> quite nice, imo.
>>
> 
> What about.
> 
> Object have 3 additional sections which must be handled by the linker script.

I expect these sections are there in both cases. The difference, I assume,
is that for the GNU linker they don't need mentioning in the linker script.
Maybe that's what you mean to say, but to me at least the sentence can also
be interpreted differently.

>>> +    symbol_re_gnu = re.compile(r'\s{15,}0x([0-9a-f]+)\s+(\S+)\n')
>>>      for line in open(args.mapfile):
>>> -        m = symbol_re.match(line)
>>> -        if not m or m.group(2) not in exports:
>>> +        name = None
>>> +        m = symbol_re_clang.match(line)
>>> +        if m:
>>> +            name = m.group(5)
>>> +        else:
>>> +            m = symbol_re_gnu.match(line)
>>> +            if m:
>>> +                name = m.group(2)
>>
>> ... uniformly use m.group(2) here (outside of the conditional)?
>>
> 
> It could be done. The initial idea was testing that VMA and LMA fields
> should be identical, which gives a bit more certainty about the format
> used.
> About map file format, both formats have some headers. Would it be
> sensible to detect such headers? BTW, probably a mis-detection would
> cause symbols not to be detected.

Not sure either way, to be honest.

Jan