When I try to set priorities in certain programs, such as init_priority(HIGH_PRIORITY), I've noticed that during linking, there's no guarantee that the programs will be compiled in the sequence I've specified based on priority. This has led to some runtime errors in my program.
I realized that in the ld file, when initializing dynamic arrays, there's no assurance of initializing init_array.* before init_array. This has resulted in runtime errors in the program. Consequently, I've rearranged the init_array.* in the ld file of NuttX to be placed before init_array and added a SORT operation to init_array.* to ensure accurate initialization based on priorities during linking.
replace *(.init_array .init_array.*) with KEEP(*(.init_array .init_array.*)).
The KEEP statement within a linker script will instruct the linker to keep the specified section, even if no symbols inside it are referenced. This statement is used within the SECTIONS section of the linker script. This becomes relevant when garbage collection is performed at link time, enabled by passing the --gc-sections switch to the linker. The KEEP statement instructs the linker to use the specified section as a root node when creating a dependency graph, looking for unused sections. Essentially forcing the section to be marked as used.
Signed-off-by: cuiziwei <cuiziwei@xiaomi.com>
Selecting this option will pass "-Map=$(TOPDIR)$(DELIM)nuttx.map" to ld
when linking NuttX ELF. That file can be useful for verifying
and debugging magic section games, and for seeing which
pieces of code get eliminated with DEBUG_OPT_UNUSED_SECTIONS.
Signed-off-by: chao.an <anchao@xiaomi.com>
## Summary
A lot of linker scripts were listed twice, once for unix, once for windows.
This PR cleans up the logic so they're only listed once.
## Impact
Any opportunity to use a single source of truth and reduce lines of code is a win!
## Testing
CI will test all build
This reverts commit 45672c269d.
Because:
* It's very confusing to have cc as LD.
* I don't see what "-nostartfiles -nodefaultlibs" in LDFLAGS are
supposed to do when we use LD directly. It would be simpler to
remove them from our LDFLAGS.
