RFC: linker enhancements
H. J. Lu
hjl@lucon.org
Thu Mar 18 01:07:00 GMT 2004
On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 10:04:56AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 02:51:14PM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > I guess I didn't change the comments when I made the change:
> >
> > elflink.c: 903
> > /* If the new weak definition comes from a relocatable file and the
> > old symbol comes from a dynamic object, we treat the new one as
> > strong. */
> >
> > elflink.c: 922
> > /* If the old weak definition comes from a relocatable file and the
> > new symbol comes from a dynamic object, we treat the old one as
> > strong. */
> >
> > The old comments are wrong now.
>
> More than that. Not only are the later comments wrong, but the
> dt_needed code doesn't do anything now. That was what was confusing
> me. I'll rip it out and fix the comments.
>
Some codes in _bfd_elf_merge_symbol are dead because of my weak symbol
change. But I was too afraid to break something to remove them :-(.
H.J.
More information about the Binutils
mailing list