Re: Correct logic for "defined by object"

["H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>]

On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 05:25:03AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 5:10 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 5:06 AM, Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 04:46:29AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> >>> No testcase?
>> >>
>> >> No.  This patch wasn't in response to a bug report or from observing
>> >> wrong linker behaviour myself.  In fact, I don't think you can write a
>> >> testcase that fails with the old code and passes with the new, due to
>> >> the way def->by_object is used.  The patch was really just a tidy.
>> >>
>> >
>> > So this patch won't change linker behavior in any way whatsoever.
>> > Basically the setting of def->by_object is unused.
>> >
>> > --
>> > H.J.
>>
>> There are
>>
>>          new_number (h != NULL
>>                       && (h->type == bfd_link_hash_defined
>>                           || h->type == bfd_link_hash_defweak
>>                           || h->type == bfd_link_hash_common)
>>                       && ((def = symbol_defined (tree->name.name)) == NULL
>>                           || def->by_object
>>                           || def->iteration == (lang_statement_iteration & 1)));
>>
>> and
>>
>>          if (!(h != NULL
>>                 && (h->type == bfd_link_hash_defined
>>                     || h->type == bfd_link_hash_defweak)
>>                 && h->u.def.section == bfd_abs_section_ptr
>>                 && (def = symbol_defined (tree->name.name)) != NULL
>>                 && def->iteration == (lang_statement_iteration & 1)))
>>
>> One checks by_object and the other doesn't.   Should they be
>> consistent?  Can we find some real usage for by_object?  If not,
>> why don't we remove it?
>
> This is a real use of by_object.  The "new_number" expression is
> saying the result of DEFINED is true iff the symbol is defined,
> defweak or common, and there are no script assignments to the symbol,
> or the symbol was actually defined in an object file, or the script
> assignment occurred before the DEFINED keyword.
>

Can't we find a testcase to show how it is used?


-- 
H.J.