This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: PATCH: ld/2218: Weak undefined symbol doesn't work properly with PIE
- From: Alan Modra <amodra at bigpond dot net dot au>
- To: "H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- Cc: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:24:13 +1030
- Subject: Re: PATCH: ld/2218: Weak undefined symbol doesn't work properly with PIE
- References: <20060127070335.GA12281@lucon.org> <20060127100451.GH11405@bubble.grove.modra.org> <20060127142806.GB17187@lucon.org> <20060127150727.GA17704@lucon.org> <20060127174156.GA19587@lucon.org> <20060127234125.GA23665@lucon.org>
On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 03:41:25PM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 09:41:56AM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 07:07:27AM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 06:28:06AM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 08:34:51PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 11:03:35PM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > > > > > We should treat global symbols in PIE like shared library.
> > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps. But please explain why the place you are patching is the
> > > > > correct place to fix a problem with weak syms. I don't think your patch
> > > > > is correct.
> > > >
> > > > PIE is like DSO when the undefined weak symbols are concerned. They
> > > > have to be dynamic symbols so that ld.so can handle them properly. I
> > > > will check in my testcase shortly so that you can check it out.
You didn't answer my question. I asked why you were patching that
particular place to fix undefined weak symbols in PIEs. See the patch
I've just committed for powerpc64.
--
Alan Modra
IBM OzLabs - Linux Technology Centre