This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] PR ld/19579: [Regression] link error linking fortran code with PIE
- From: Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com>
- To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 01:58:18 +1030
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR ld/19579: [Regression] link error linking fortran code with PIE
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20160304134833 dot GA11350 at gmail dot com> <20160305015242 dot GE9617 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org> <CAMe9rOq=mgfjaFgAdw=u3dzvtt3sG519Pipy4VyyPS1T3+GJSA at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 07:41:42PM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Alan Modra <email@example.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 05:48:33AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >> --- a/bfd/elflink.c
> >> +++ b/bfd/elflink.c
> >> @@ -1172,9 +1172,12 @@ _bfd_elf_merge_symbol (bfd *abfd,
> >> newdef = !bfd_is_und_section (sec) && !bfd_is_com_section (sec);
> >> + /* The old common symbol in executable is a definition if the new
> >> + definition comes from a shared library. */
> >> olddef = (h->root.type != bfd_link_hash_undefined
> >> && h->root.type != bfd_link_hash_undefweak
> >> - && h->root.type != bfd_link_hash_common);
> >> + && (h->root.type != bfd_link_hash_common
> >> + || (!olddyn && newdyn && bfd_link_executable (info))));
> >> /* NEWFUNC and OLDFUNC indicate whether the new or old symbol,
> >> respectively, appear to be a function. */
> > Why is this the correct place to change, and not code after the
> > comment "We treat a common symbol as a definition"?
> olddef has been checked well before that.
And do any of those matter?
> We need to get it right.
That's why I asked. You haven't yet replied with anything more than a
superficial reason for not moving the change to where it ought to go,
Australia Development Lab, IBM