[Mips}Using DT tags for handling local ifuncs

[Richard Sandiford]

Jack Carter <Jack.Carter@imgtec.com> writes:
> Yes gdb needs to change a little, but that is not really the issue. The
> gdb change is relatively small.
>
> The question is why do it if benefits in reality no one as I suspect
> will be the case?
> Where is the bang for the buck?
>
> That said, I am assuming I will have to do it and will make it work, but
> I don't see why really.

Experience suggests that if we take a short-cut here we'll regret it later.
And it would be much harder to add something like this once ifuncs are
already used in the wild.  The behaviour of the static linker would
then depend on whether the dynamic linker supported the new tag and
we'd effectively have two forms of ifunc ABI.  So if we go with the
current approach we have to be as certain as we can be that we'll never
want to revisit that decision.

Are you pushing back because of the bfd implementation?  If you're
hitting problems with that then please go into details.

Thanks,
Richard