Your patch on 2001-01-26 is bad

[H . J . Lu]

On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 11:49:18PM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 09:57:43PM -0800, H . J . Lu wrote:
> > >   STV_PROTECTED: Resolved locally, but included in the
> > > 		dynamic symbol table.
> > 
> > From outside, STV_PROTECTED is just like STV_DEFAULT. STV_PROTECTED is
> > only meaningful inside DSO.
> 
> Is that not exactly what I said?
> 
> > When you do local binding for STV_PROTECTED, will funcntion address
> > work right both inside and outside of DSO where it is defined?
> 
> Certainly.
> 

I am not sure. By "work right", I mean you can compare "&function"
taken inside and outside of DSO. That is one reason STV_PROTECTED is
treated almost exactly like STV_DEFAULT. The static linker does
very little and the dynamic linker does the most.

BTW, glibc failed to "make check" in elf on ia64 because of it. Maybe
we can add

	case STV_PROTECTED:
	  if (info->shared)
	    return false;

But I am not very so sure it is 100% correct.

-- 
H.J. Lu (hjl@valinux.com)