Here is the corresponding gcc patch:

Hi nemanjai, not sure about PPC64. I needed this to put together a powerpcspe-linux toolchain.

Hi nemanjai, I needed this, D98836 and D98833 to put together a powerpcspe-linux toolchain.

Hi Justin, I also needed D98831 and D98833 to get compiler-rt to build for a powerpcspe Linux toolchain.

Another ping to see if there's anything else I can do to get this across the line.

I have cleaned up D95198 too. IMHO the change is now much clearer.

Reduce changes, update test, clarify intent.

Minor fix - used CHECK instead of CHECK-NEXT in during rework.

I have updated the description (summary?) to hopefully more clearly convey the intent.

Address MaskRay feedback.

Just a quick ping on this to see if there's any more feedback.

Patrick Oppenlander <patrick.oppenlander@gmail.com>

I don't have commit access so someone else will need to commit.

Thanks for the feedback!

Maintain section address order as much as possible when assigning file offsets.

Use smaller address in test case.

In D95199#2534394, @peter.smith wrote:

Thanks for the update, I'll try and take a look later in the week. Will have to have a think about the zero size section case. If we haven't assigned it to a PT_LOAD and it defines no symbol it may be possible to not put it in the object file.

I can think of a few times I've encountered this on nommu targets. Some examples:

Use a smaller address in test case. This means that if something goes wrong we don't try to make a huge file.

Not sure why my comments were automatically marked as done.

Updated comments.
Add assertion that all sections in a load segment must be allocated.
Fix tbss.s test case.

Thanks for taking the time to review.

I've also found no good reason why BFD ld forces the program headers to reside in the first PT_LOAD segment. This change was based on that logic.

I agree that the description could be better. Looks like I fixated on the "could not allocate headers" error message when I wrote it.

I forgot to mention that I do not have commit access. If this is acceptable someone else will need to commit on my behalf. Thanks again.

Yes, this came from a real use case.

In D95198#2519261, @peter.smith wrote:

I'm not clear on what the requirements are here.

In D95199#2517071, @MaskRay wrote:

In D95199#2514581, @pattop wrote:

In fact, if https://reviews.llvm.org/D95198 is acceptable it is a separate justification for this change. In order to place program headers somewhere other than the lowest VMA in the program image something like this needs to happen.

Both this patch and D95198 look a bit arbitrary to me. Please see my question in D95198. Also adding @grimar who has improved linker scripts a lot.

Thankyou for taking the time to review and comment.

In fact, if https://reviews.llvm.org/D95198 is acceptable it is a separate justification for this change. In order to place program headers somewhere other than the lowest VMA in the program image something like this needs to happen.

If the direction of the patch is acceptable I can provide a detailed analysis of each required testcase adjustment.

In D95199#2514547, @MaskRay wrote:

For out-of-order-sections.s, you could just swap foo and bar.