PATCH: Don't warn defintion overrides indirect versioned symbol
Fri Aug 9 12:42:00 GMT 2002
On Freitag, 9. August 2002 21:28, H. J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 08:57:23PM +0200, Franz Sirl wrote:
> > On Freitag, 9. August 2002 03:55, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 10:49:07AM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > > > This is for
> > > >
> > > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2002-08/msg00108.html
> > >
> > > If there is no objection in the next few hours, I will check it in
> > > along with the testcase tonight.
> > I hope this doesn't silence the libgcc_s vs glibc warning, which seems
> > perfectly valid to me?
> It will. For one thing, ld.so won't complain. Why should ld? Please
> see my testcase.
It should warn because for everything except the very special libgcc_s vs.
glibc case the user is warned about a real problem. In the normal case if a
symbol is moved, you simply reversion it and want to be warned if you forget
Contrary to your patch, I would rather strengthen the warning, cause it really
should warn too if both symbols are default non-weak symbols with the same
version, not warning about that caused the libgcc_s vs. glibc mess in the
More information about the Binutils