Re: RFC: Fix ia64 visibility

["H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>]

On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 04:17:15PM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 04:15:08PM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > It is an optimization for calling directly to protected functions. In
> > that case, we don't need PLT nor function descriptors. It is the same
> > as calling an internal function.
> 
> Certainly.
> 
> > But we can't do it for function
> > descriptors of protected functions. That check is based on relocation
> > type, not just symbol alone.
> 
> Because ld.so is going to allocate it, correct?

Yes.

> 
> > Another way to do it is to pass reloction type to
> > elfNN_ia64_dynamic_symbol_p so that it has enough info to do
> > the right thing.
> 
> Eh.  I'd prefer a different function.  It can do little else
> besides checking the reloc plus calling elfNN_ia64_dynamic_symbol_p.
> 
> > I can submit a new patch if it is preferred.

I didn't create a new function since it isn't used anywhere else.
Instead, I addded a new variable and set it based on the return
value of elfNN_ia64_dynamic_symbol_p and symbol visibility.


H.J.

Attachment: bfd-ia64-protected.patch
Description: Text document