RFC/A: Add a bfd hook for defining common symbols
H.J. Lu
hjl.tools@gmail.com
Wed Apr 1 20:34:00 GMT 2009
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Richard Sandiford
<rdsandiford@googlemail.com> wrote:
> The XCOFF linker uses XCOFF_DEF_REGULAR to check whether a symbol
> has a regular definition. xcofflink.c:xcoff_post_gc_symbol therefore
> checks for common symbols that were defined by the linker:
>
> /* If this is a final link, and the symbol was defined as a common
> symbol in a regular object file, and there was no definition in
> any dynamic object, then the linker will have allocated space for
> the symbol in a common section but the XCOFF_DEF_REGULAR flag
> will not have been set. */
> if (h->root.type == bfd_link_hash_defined
> && (h->flags & XCOFF_DEF_REGULAR) == 0
> && (h->flags & XCOFF_REF_REGULAR) != 0
> && (h->flags & XCOFF_DEF_DYNAMIC) == 0
> && (bfd_is_abs_section (h->root.u.def.section)
> || (h->root.u.def.section->owner->flags & DYNAMIC) == 0))
> h->flags |= XCOFF_DEF_REGULAR;
>
> But this happens too late for things like xcoff_mark_auto_exports.
>
> We could just put this code in a function and use it instead of testing
> XCOFF_DEF_REGULAR directly. That seems a bit messy though, and I don't
> really like this idea of detecting what the linker has done after the fact.
>
> Another alternative is to add a linker emulation hook. But we'd
> then be exposing XCOFF_DEF_REGULAR outside BFD, which doesn't seem
> very clean either.
FWIW, ELF linker emulation includes "elf-bfd.h" and uses plenty of
BFD/ELF things. I don't see why you can't do it for XCOFF. You don't
need to access XCOFF_DEF_REGULAR directly from linker. A macro
defined in BFD should work for you.
> We already allocate .dynbss within BFD itself, so what do you think
> about doing the same for common symbols? Does the patch below look right,
> or is it overkill?
>
I would prefer a linker emulation hook.
--
H.J.
More information about the Binutils
mailing list