RFC: Fix ia64 visibility
Richard Henderson
rth@redhat.com
Wed May 7 22:32:00 GMT 2003
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~
More information about the Binutils
mailing list