This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [committed, PATCH] x86: Add POINTER_LOCAL_IFUNC_P/PLT_LOCAL_IFUNC_P
- From: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>, binutils at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2017 13:11:26 +0100
- Subject: Re: [committed, PATCH] x86: Add POINTER_LOCAL_IFUNC_P/PLT_LOCAL_IFUNC_P
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- Authentication-results: ext-mx07.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com
- Authentication-results: ext-mx07.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=palves at redhat dot com
- Dmarc-filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 62C2CC047B79
- References: <20171006073831.GA14107@gmail.com>
On 10/06/2017 08:38 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> +/* TRUE if this is a PLT reference to a local IFUNC. */
> +#define PLT_LOCAL_IFUNC_P(INFO, H) \
> + ((H)->dynindx == -1 \
> + || ((bfd_link_executable (INFO) \
> + || ELF_ST_VISIBILITY ((H)->other) != STV_DEFAULT) \
> + && (H)->def_regular \
> + && (H)->type == STT_GNU_IFUNC))
> +
OOC, is there a good reason these things are macros
instead of (static inline) functions?
Thanks,
Pedro Alves