[v4] PR30592 objcopy: allow --set-section-flags to add or remove SHF_X86_64_LARGE
Checks
Commit Message
For example, objcopy --set-section-flags .data=alloc,large will add
SHF_X86_64_LARGE to the .data section. Omitting "large" will drop the
SHF_X86_64_LARGE flag.
The bfd_section flag is named generically, SEC_ELF_LARGE, in case other
processors want to follow SHF_X86_64_LARGE. SEC_ELF_LARGE has the same value
as SEC_TIC54X_CLINK and SEC_MEP_VLIW.
bfd/
* section.c: Define SEC_ELF_LARGE.
* bfd-in2.h: Regenerate.
* elf64-x86-64.c (elf_x86_64_section_flags, elf_x86_64_fake_sections,
elf_x86_64_copy_private_section_data): New.
binutils/
* NEWS: Mention the new feature for objcopy.
* doc/binutils.texi: Mention "large".
* objcopy.c (parse_flags): Parse "large".
(check_new_section_flags): Error if "large" is used with a
non-x86-64 ELF target.
* testsuite/binutils-all/x86-64/large-sections.d: New.
* testsuite/binutils-all/x86-64/large-sections.s: New.
* testsuite/binutils-all/x86-64/large-sections-i386.d: New.
* testsuite/binutils-all/x86-64/large-sections-2.d: New.
* testsuite/binutils-all/x86-64/large-sections-2-x32.d: New.
--
Changes from v1:
* Add an entry to binutils/NEWS
* Adjust doc/binutils.texi wording
* Guard a SEC_ELF_LARGE branch with EM_X86_64 check
Changes from v2:
* Address Jan's comments https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2023-July/128303.html
Changes from v3:
* Address Alan's comments. Define elf_x86_64_section_flags, elf_x86_64_fake_sections,
elf_x86_64_copy_private_section_data instead of adding x86-64 flags to generic code.
* Add an error when 'large' is used by other targets (e.g. EM_386,
EM_AARCH64).
---
bfd/bfd-in2.h | 3 ++
bfd/elf64-x86-64.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++++
bfd/section.c | 3 ++
binutils/NEWS | 3 ++
binutils/doc/binutils.texi | 15 ++++----
binutils/objcopy.c | 22 ++++++++++--
.../x86-64/large-sections-2-x32.d | 15 ++++++++
.../binutils-all/x86-64/large-sections-2.d | 15 ++++++++
.../binutils-all/x86-64/large-sections-i386.d | 6 ++++
.../binutils-all/x86-64/large-sections.d | 14 ++++++++
.../binutils-all/x86-64/large-sections.s | 8 +++++
11 files changed, 130 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 binutils/testsuite/binutils-all/x86-64/large-sections-2-x32.d
create mode 100644 binutils/testsuite/binutils-all/x86-64/large-sections-2.d
create mode 100644 binutils/testsuite/binutils-all/x86-64/large-sections-i386.d
create mode 100644 binutils/testsuite/binutils-all/x86-64/large-sections.d
create mode 100644 binutils/testsuite/binutils-all/x86-64/large-sections.s
Comments
On Fri, Jul 07, 2023 at 10:30:35PM -0700, Fangrui Song via Binutils wrote:
> +static bool
> +elf_x86_64_copy_private_section_data (bfd *ibfd ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED,
> + asection *isec,
> + bfd *obfd ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED,
> + asection *osec) {
> + /* objcopy --set-section-flags without "large" drops SHF_X86_64_LARGE. */
> + elf_section_flags (osec) = (elf_section_flags (isec) & ~SHF_X86_64_LARGE);
> +
> + return true;
> +}
> +
Unlike the other two functions, this one replaces the standard
_bfd_elf_copy_private_section_data. You'll want to call it, and
distinguish between a call from objcopy.c and a call from ldwrite.c.
I think you're OK accessing elf_section_flags for osec without first
checking for an elf bfd, because bfd_copy_private_section_data invokes
the obfd xvec function. Like this:
static bool
elf_x86_64_copy_private_section_data (bfd *ibfd, asection *isec,
bfd *obfd, asection *osec)
{
if (!_bfd_elf_copy_private_section_data (ibfd, isec, obfd, osec))
return false;
/* objcopy --set-section-flags without "large" drops SHF_X86_64_LARGE. */
if (ibfd != obfd)
elf_section_flags (osec) &= ~SHF_X86_64_LARGE;
return true;
}
The patch looks OK to me with the above replacement.
On 2023-07-09, Alan Modra wrote:
>On Fri, Jul 07, 2023 at 10:30:35PM -0700, Fangrui Song via Binutils wrote:
>> +static bool
>> +elf_x86_64_copy_private_section_data (bfd *ibfd ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED,
>> + asection *isec,
>> + bfd *obfd ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED,
>> + asection *osec) {
>> + /* objcopy --set-section-flags without "large" drops SHF_X86_64_LARGE. */
>> + elf_section_flags (osec) = (elf_section_flags (isec) & ~SHF_X86_64_LARGE);
>> +
>> + return true;
>> +}
>> +
>
>Unlike the other two functions, this one replaces the standard
>_bfd_elf_copy_private_section_data. You'll want to call it, and
>distinguish between a call from objcopy.c and a call from ldwrite.c.
>I think you're OK accessing elf_section_flags for osec without first
>checking for an elf bfd, because bfd_copy_private_section_data invokes
>the obfd xvec function. Like this:
>
>static bool
>elf_x86_64_copy_private_section_data (bfd *ibfd, asection *isec,
> bfd *obfd, asection *osec)
>{
> if (!_bfd_elf_copy_private_section_data (ibfd, isec, obfd, osec))
> return false;
>
> /* objcopy --set-section-flags without "large" drops SHF_X86_64_LARGE. */
> if (ibfd != obfd)
> elf_section_flags (osec) &= ~SHF_X86_64_LARGE;
>
> return true;
>}
>
>The patch looks OK to me with the above replacement.
Thank you. I see that we need to call _bfd_elf_copy_private_section_data first to
respect a few other properties including sh_entsize and "readonly".
For objcopy -I binary -O elf64-x86-64 pr25749-2.c a.o,
ibfd may not be an ELF bfd, but obfd is guaranteed to be an ELF bfd.
ld/ldwrite.c calls bfd_copy_private_section_data with ibfd == obfd.
On 08.07.2023 07:30, Fangrui Song via Binutils wrote:
> --- a/bfd/section.c
> +++ b/bfd/section.c
> @@ -359,6 +359,9 @@ CODE_FRAGMENT
> . TMS320C54X only. *}
> .#define SEC_TIC54X_BLOCK 0x10000000
> .
> +. {* This section has the SHF_X86_64_LARGE flag. This is ELF x86-64 only. *}
> +.#define SEC_ELF_LARGE 0x10000000
> +.
> . {* Conditionally link this section; do not link if there are no
> . references found to any symbol in the section. This is for TI
> . TMS320C54X only. *}
> @@ -2618,7 +2621,7 @@ merge_gnu_build_notes (bfd * abfd,
> }
>
> static flagword
> -check_new_section_flags (flagword flags, bfd * abfd, const char * secname)
> +check_new_section_flags (flagword flags, bfd *abfd, const char * secname)
Nit: Stray (and inconsistent) change?
> @@ -2631,6 +2634,19 @@ check_new_section_flags (flagword flags, bfd * abfd, const char * secname)
> bfd_get_filename (abfd), secname);
> flags &= ~ SEC_COFF_SHARED;
> }
> +
> + /* Report a fatal error if 'large' is used with a non-x86-64 ELF target.
> + Suppress the error for non-ELF targets to allow -O binary and formats that
> + use the bit value SEC_ELF_LARGE for other purposes. */
> + if ((flags & SEC_ELF_LARGE) != 0
> + && bfd_get_flavour (abfd) == bfd_target_elf_flavour
> + && get_elf_backend_data (abfd)->elf_machine_code != EM_X86_64)
DYM
if ((flags & SEC_ELF_LARGE) != 0
&& (bfd_get_flavour (abfd) != bfd_target_elf_flavour
|| get_elf_backend_data (abfd)->elf_machine_code != EM_X86_64))
?
Jan
> + {
> + fatal (_ ("%s[%s]: 'large' flag is ELF x86-64 specific"),
> + bfd_get_filename (abfd), secname);
> + flags &= ~SEC_ELF_LARGE;
> + }
> +
> return flags;
> }
>
On 2023-07-10, Jan Beulich wrote:
>On 08.07.2023 07:30, Fangrui Song via Binutils wrote:
>> --- a/bfd/section.c
>> +++ b/bfd/section.c
>> @@ -359,6 +359,9 @@ CODE_FRAGMENT
>> . TMS320C54X only. *}
>> .#define SEC_TIC54X_BLOCK 0x10000000
>> .
>> +. {* This section has the SHF_X86_64_LARGE flag. This is ELF x86-64 only. *}
>> +.#define SEC_ELF_LARGE 0x10000000
>> +.
>> . {* Conditionally link this section; do not link if there are no
>> . references found to any symbol in the section. This is for TI
>> . TMS320C54X only. *}
>> @@ -2618,7 +2621,7 @@ merge_gnu_build_notes (bfd * abfd,
>> }
>>
>> static flagword
>> -check_new_section_flags (flagword flags, bfd * abfd, const char * secname)
>> +check_new_section_flags (flagword flags, bfd *abfd, const char * secname)
>
>Nit: Stray (and inconsistent) change?
Sorry, this was an unneeded change.
I guess I formatted this line either in editor or via .clang-format but
I reverted `const char *secname` but not `bfd *abfd`...
>> @@ -2631,6 +2634,19 @@ check_new_section_flags (flagword flags, bfd * abfd, const char * secname)
>> bfd_get_filename (abfd), secname);
>> flags &= ~ SEC_COFF_SHARED;
>> }
>> +
>> + /* Report a fatal error if 'large' is used with a non-x86-64 ELF target.
>> + Suppress the error for non-ELF targets to allow -O binary and formats that
>> + use the bit value SEC_ELF_LARGE for other purposes. */
>> + if ((flags & SEC_ELF_LARGE) != 0
>> + && bfd_get_flavour (abfd) == bfd_target_elf_flavour
>> + && get_elf_backend_data (abfd)->elf_machine_code != EM_X86_64)
>
>DYM
>
> if ((flags & SEC_ELF_LARGE) != 0
> && (bfd_get_flavour (abfd) != bfd_target_elf_flavour
> || get_elf_backend_data (abfd)->elf_machine_code != EM_X86_64))
>
>?
>
>Jan
I do mean that this check is fired only when the output bfd (abfd) is
ELF and the architecture is different from x86-64.
The bit value SEC_ELF_LARGE is shared with other object file formats
(COFF SEC_TIC54X_BLOCK; I don't know what this target is).
If TMS320C54X has a section with the SEC_TIC54X_BLOCK flag, we
don't want to report a fatal error.
In addition, abfd may specify a non-ELF bfd, e.g.,
objcopy --set-section-flags .data=alloc,large -I elf64-x86-64 -O binary a.o a.bin
I assume that this case should receive no warning/error, just like how
many other flags like 'load', 'noload' behave today.
>> + {
>> + fatal (_ ("%s[%s]: 'large' flag is ELF x86-64 specific"),
>> + bfd_get_filename (abfd), secname);
>> + flags &= ~SEC_ELF_LARGE;
>> + }
>> +
>> return flags;
>> }
>>
>
>
On 10.07.2023 20:07, Fangrui Song wrote:
> On 2023-07-10, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 08.07.2023 07:30, Fangrui Song via Binutils wrote:
>>> @@ -2631,6 +2634,19 @@ check_new_section_flags (flagword flags, bfd * abfd, const char * secname)
>>> bfd_get_filename (abfd), secname);
>>> flags &= ~ SEC_COFF_SHARED;
>>> }
>>> +
>>> + /* Report a fatal error if 'large' is used with a non-x86-64 ELF target.
>>> + Suppress the error for non-ELF targets to allow -O binary and formats that
>>> + use the bit value SEC_ELF_LARGE for other purposes. */
>>> + if ((flags & SEC_ELF_LARGE) != 0
>>> + && bfd_get_flavour (abfd) == bfd_target_elf_flavour
>>> + && get_elf_backend_data (abfd)->elf_machine_code != EM_X86_64)
>>
>> DYM
>>
>> if ((flags & SEC_ELF_LARGE) != 0
>> && (bfd_get_flavour (abfd) != bfd_target_elf_flavour
>> || get_elf_backend_data (abfd)->elf_machine_code != EM_X86_64))
>>
>> ?
>
> I do mean that this check is fired only when the output bfd (abfd) is
> ELF and the architecture is different from x86-64.
>
> The bit value SEC_ELF_LARGE is shared with other object file formats
> (COFF SEC_TIC54X_BLOCK; I don't know what this target is).
> If TMS320C54X has a section with the SEC_TIC54X_BLOCK flag, we
> don't want to report a fatal error.
Hmm, I think I see what you mean. May I then suggest to re-order like
this:
if (bfd_get_flavour (abfd) == bfd_target_elf_flavour
&& (flags & SEC_ELF_LARGE) != 0
&& get_elf_backend_data (abfd)->elf_machine_code != EM_X86_64)
?
Jan
On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 7:32 AM Jan Beulich via Binutils
<binutils@sourceware.org> wrote:
>
> On 10.07.2023 20:07, Fangrui Song wrote:
> > On 2023-07-10, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> On 08.07.2023 07:30, Fangrui Song via Binutils wrote:
> >>> @@ -2631,6 +2634,19 @@ check_new_section_flags (flagword flags, bfd * abfd, const char * secname)
> >>> bfd_get_filename (abfd), secname);
> >>> flags &= ~ SEC_COFF_SHARED;
> >>> }
> >>> +
> >>> + /* Report a fatal error if 'large' is used with a non-x86-64 ELF target.
> >>> + Suppress the error for non-ELF targets to allow -O binary and formats that
> >>> + use the bit value SEC_ELF_LARGE for other purposes. */
> >>> + if ((flags & SEC_ELF_LARGE) != 0
> >>> + && bfd_get_flavour (abfd) == bfd_target_elf_flavour
> >>> + && get_elf_backend_data (abfd)->elf_machine_code != EM_X86_64)
> >>
> >> DYM
> >>
> >> if ((flags & SEC_ELF_LARGE) != 0
> >> && (bfd_get_flavour (abfd) != bfd_target_elf_flavour
> >> || get_elf_backend_data (abfd)->elf_machine_code != EM_X86_64))
> >>
> >> ?
> >
> > I do mean that this check is fired only when the output bfd (abfd) is
> > ELF and the architecture is different from x86-64.
> >
> > The bit value SEC_ELF_LARGE is shared with other object file formats
> > (COFF SEC_TIC54X_BLOCK; I don't know what this target is).
> > If TMS320C54X has a section with the SEC_TIC54X_BLOCK flag, we
> > don't want to report a fatal error.
>
> Hmm, I think I see what you mean. May I then suggest to re-order like
> this:
>
> if (bfd_get_flavour (abfd) == bfd_target_elf_flavour
> && (flags & SEC_ELF_LARGE) != 0
> && get_elf_backend_data (abfd)->elf_machine_code != EM_X86_64)
>
> ?
>
> Jan
Yes, I think we can do this, but the current order likely leads to
better performance (does not matter, though)
since `flags` is a variable that's immediately available. and matches
the style of flags & SEC_COFF_SHARED.
That said, I do not insist that we insist on doing this. Feel free to
change if you feel strongly:)
@@ -625,6 +625,9 @@ typedef struct bfd_section
TMS320C54X only. */
#define SEC_TIC54X_BLOCK 0x10000000
+ /* This section has the SHF_X86_64_LARGE flag. This is ELF x86-64 only. */
+#define SEC_ELF_LARGE 0x10000000
+
/* Conditionally link this section; do not link if there are no
references found to any symbol in the section. This is for TI
TMS320C54X only. */
@@ -5281,6 +5281,36 @@ elf_x86_64_merge_symbol (struct elf_link_hash_entry *h,
return true;
}
+static bool
+elf_x86_64_section_flags (const Elf_Internal_Shdr *hdr)
+{
+ if ((hdr->sh_flags & SHF_X86_64_LARGE) != 0)
+ hdr->bfd_section->flags |= SEC_ELF_LARGE;
+
+ return true;
+}
+
+static bool
+elf_x86_64_fake_sections (bfd *abfd ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED,
+ Elf_Internal_Shdr *hdr, asection *sec)
+{
+ if (sec->flags & SEC_ELF_LARGE)
+ hdr->sh_flags |= SHF_X86_64_LARGE;
+
+ return true;
+}
+
+static bool
+elf_x86_64_copy_private_section_data (bfd *ibfd ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED,
+ asection *isec,
+ bfd *obfd ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED,
+ asection *osec) {
+ /* objcopy --set-section-flags without "large" drops SHF_X86_64_LARGE. */
+ elf_section_flags (osec) = (elf_section_flags (isec) & ~SHF_X86_64_LARGE);
+
+ return true;
+}
+
static int
elf_x86_64_additional_program_headers (bfd *abfd,
struct bfd_link_info *info ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED)
@@ -5408,6 +5438,8 @@ elf_x86_64_special_sections[]=
#define elf_info_to_howto elf_x86_64_info_to_howto
+#define bfd_elf64_bfd_copy_private_section_data \
+ elf_x86_64_copy_private_section_data
#define bfd_elf64_bfd_reloc_type_lookup elf_x86_64_reloc_type_lookup
#define bfd_elf64_bfd_reloc_name_lookup \
elf_x86_64_reloc_name_lookup
@@ -5448,6 +5480,8 @@ elf_x86_64_special_sections[]=
elf_x86_64_merge_symbol
#define elf_backend_special_sections \
elf_x86_64_special_sections
+#define elf_backend_section_flags elf_x86_64_section_flags
+#define elf_backend_fake_sections elf_x86_64_fake_sections
#define elf_backend_additional_program_headers \
elf_x86_64_additional_program_headers
#define elf_backend_setup_gnu_properties \
@@ -5564,6 +5598,8 @@ elf64_x86_64_copy_solaris_special_section_fields (const bfd *ibfd ATTRIBUTE_UNUS
#undef ELF_TARGET_OS
#undef ELF_OSABI
+#define bfd_elf32_bfd_copy_private_section_data \
+ elf_x86_64_copy_private_section_data
#define bfd_elf32_bfd_reloc_type_lookup \
elf_x86_64_reloc_type_lookup
#define bfd_elf32_bfd_reloc_name_lookup \
@@ -359,6 +359,9 @@ CODE_FRAGMENT
. TMS320C54X only. *}
.#define SEC_TIC54X_BLOCK 0x10000000
.
+. {* This section has the SHF_X86_64_LARGE flag. This is ELF x86-64 only. *}
+.#define SEC_ELF_LARGE 0x10000000
+.
. {* Conditionally link this section; do not link if there are no
. references found to any symbol in the section. This is for TI
. TMS320C54X only. *}
@@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
-*- text -*-
+* objcopy's --set-section-flags now support "large" to set SHF_X86_64_LARGE
+ for ELF x86-64 objects.
+
Changes in 2.41:
* The MIPS port now supports the Sony Interactive Entertainment Allegrex
@@ -1745,13 +1745,14 @@ Set the flags for any sections matching @var{sectionpattern}. The
@var{flags} argument is a comma separated string of flag names. The
recognized names are @samp{alloc}, @samp{contents}, @samp{load},
@samp{noload}, @samp{readonly}, @samp{code}, @samp{data}, @samp{rom},
-@samp{exclude}, @samp{share}, and @samp{debug}. You can set the
-@samp{contents} flag for a section which does not have contents, but it
-is not meaningful to clear the @samp{contents} flag of a section which
-does have contents--just remove the section instead. Not all flags are
-meaningful for all object file formats. In particular the
-@samp{share} flag is only meaningful for COFF format files and not for
-ELF format files.
+@samp{exclude}, @samp{share}, @samp{debug}, and @samp{large}.
+You can set the @samp{contents} flag for a section which does not have
+contents, but it is not meaningful to clear the @samp{contents} flag of a
+section which does have contents--just remove the section instead. Not all
+flags are meaningful for all object file formats. In particular the
+@samp{share} flag is only meaningful for COFF format files and not for ELF
+format files. The ELF x86-64 specific flag @samp{large} corresponds to
+SHF_X86_64_LARGE.
@item --set-section-alignment @var{sectionpattern}=@var{align}
Set the alignment for any sections matching @var{sectionpattern}.
@@ -803,6 +803,7 @@ parse_flags (const char *s)
PARSE_FLAG ("contents", SEC_HAS_CONTENTS);
PARSE_FLAG ("merge", SEC_MERGE);
PARSE_FLAG ("strings", SEC_STRINGS);
+ PARSE_FLAG ("large", SEC_ELF_LARGE);
#undef PARSE_FLAG
else
{
@@ -812,8 +813,10 @@ parse_flags (const char *s)
strncpy (copy, s, len);
copy[len] = '\0';
non_fatal (_("unrecognized section flag `%s'"), copy);
- fatal (_("supported flags: %s"),
- "alloc, load, noload, readonly, debug, code, data, rom, exclude, share, contents, merge, strings");
+ fatal (_ ("supported flags: %s"),
+ "alloc, load, noload, readonly, debug, code, data, rom, "
+ "exclude, contents, merge, strings, (COFF specific) share, "
+ "(ELF x86-64 specific) large");
}
s = snext;
@@ -2618,7 +2621,7 @@ merge_gnu_build_notes (bfd * abfd,
}
static flagword
-check_new_section_flags (flagword flags, bfd * abfd, const char * secname)
+check_new_section_flags (flagword flags, bfd *abfd, const char * secname)
{
/* Only set the SEC_COFF_SHARED flag on COFF files.
The same bit value is used by ELF targets to indicate
@@ -2631,6 +2634,19 @@ check_new_section_flags (flagword flags, bfd * abfd, const char * secname)
bfd_get_filename (abfd), secname);
flags &= ~ SEC_COFF_SHARED;
}
+
+ /* Report a fatal error if 'large' is used with a non-x86-64 ELF target.
+ Suppress the error for non-ELF targets to allow -O binary and formats that
+ use the bit value SEC_ELF_LARGE for other purposes. */
+ if ((flags & SEC_ELF_LARGE) != 0
+ && bfd_get_flavour (abfd) == bfd_target_elf_flavour
+ && get_elf_backend_data (abfd)->elf_machine_code != EM_X86_64)
+ {
+ fatal (_ ("%s[%s]: 'large' flag is ELF x86-64 specific"),
+ bfd_get_filename (abfd), secname);
+ flags &= ~SEC_ELF_LARGE;
+ }
+
return flags;
}
new file mode 100644
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+#source: large-sections.s
+#PROG: objcopy
+#as: --x32
+#objcopy: --set-section-flags .ldata=alloc
+#readelf: -S -W
+
+#...
+ \[[ 0-9]+\] \.text.*[ \t]+PROGBITS[ \t0-9a-f]+AX[ \t]+.*
+#...
+ \[[ 0-9]+\] \.data.*[ \t]+PROGBITS[ \t0-9a-f]+WA[ \t]+.*
+#...
+ \[[ 0-9]+\] \.ltext.*[ \t]+PROGBITS[ \t0-9a-f]+AXl[ \t]+.*
+#...
+ \[[ 0-9]+\] \.ldata.*[ \t]+PROGBITS[ \t0-9a-f]+WA[ \t]+.*
+#pass
new file mode 100644
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+#source: large-sections.s
+#PROG: objcopy
+#as: --64
+#objcopy: --set-section-flags .ldata=alloc
+#readelf: -S -W
+
+#...
+ \[[ 0-9]+\] \.text.*[ \t]+PROGBITS[ \t0-9a-f]+AX[ \t]+.*
+#...
+ \[[ 0-9]+\] \.data.*[ \t]+PROGBITS[ \t0-9a-f]+WA[ \t]+.*
+#...
+ \[[ 0-9]+\] \.ltext.*[ \t]+PROGBITS[ \t0-9a-f]+AXl[ \t]+.*
+#...
+ \[[ 0-9]+\] \.ldata.*[ \t]+PROGBITS[ \t0-9a-f]+WA[ \t]+.*
+#pass
new file mode 100644
@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+#source: large-sections.s
+#PROG: objcopy
+#as: --64
+#objcopy: -O elf32-i386 --set-section-flags .data=alloc,large
+#target: x86_64-*-linux*
+#error: \A[^[]*\[.data\]: 'large' flag is ELF x86-64 specific
new file mode 100644
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+#PROG: objcopy
+#as: --64
+#objcopy: --set-section-flags .text=alloc,readonly,code,large --set-section-flags .data=alloc,large
+#readelf: -S -W
+
+#...
+ \[[ 0-9]+\] \.text.*[ \t]+PROGBITS[ \t0-9a-f]+AXl[ \t]+.*
+#...
+ \[[ 0-9]+\] \.data.*[ \t]+PROGBITS[ \t0-9a-f]+WAl[ \t]+.*
+#...
+ \[[ 0-9]+\] \.ltext.*[ \t]+PROGBITS[ \t0-9a-f]+AXl[ \t]+.*
+#...
+ \[[ 0-9]+\] \.ldata.*[ \t]+PROGBITS[ \t0-9a-f]+WAl[ \t]+.*
+#pass
new file mode 100644
@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+ .section .text, "ax"
+ nop
+ .section .data, "aw"
+ .byte 1
+ .section .ltext, "axl"
+ nop
+ .section .ldata, "awl"
+ .byte 1