This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the binutils project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [RFC] unify dynamic_symbol_p implementations

On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 09:43:48AM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 08:26:43AM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > Weak defined symbols are purely for link time and only meaningful for
> > relocatable inputs.
> 
> Hmm, OK.  Seems a little odd that we make weak undef dynamic then.

Weak undef can be dynamic if there is a definition from a shared library. It
is just weak defined should be treated as strong when a competing definition
comes from a shared library.

> 
> I'm going to install my patch so that x86 and ppc work again.  It's
> likely that ia64 could use _bfd_elf_symbol_refs_local_p instead of
> _bfd_elf_dynamic_symbol_p, but I don't really have the time right
> now to figure out what needs doing.
> 

I will check out ia64 tomorrow.


H.J.
Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]