PATCH: Don't warn defintion overrides indirect versioned symbol

[H. J. Lu]

On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 09:42:18PM +0200, Franz Sirl wrote:
> 
> 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 
> that. 
> 
> 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 
> first place.
> 

There is nothing wrong to have 2 different DSOes defining the same
symbol. We never warn about it nor should.


H.J.