RFC: Fix ia64 visibility

[Richard Henderson]

On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 11:19:46AM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> I thought it was checked by the want_pltoff field.

Ah yes.  Hmm, I guess this part is ok then.

> dynamic_symbol_p only checks STV_INTERNAL and STV_HIDDEN. For certain
> relocation types, there is no need for dynamic symbol lookup even for
> STV_PROTECTED. I can use ELF_ST_VISIBILITY (h->other) != STV_PROTECTED.
> But I thought ELF_ST_VISIBILITY (h->other) == STV_DEFAULT might help
> compiler a little bit. Maybe I should put a comment there.

I'd rather we not sprinkle STV_PROTECTED checks (or anything else)
all over the place.  Is it actually incorrect to modify dynamic_symbol_p
to check STV_PROTECTED?  If so, we should have a different predicate
function that tests exactly what we want and use that.


r~