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