Release 2.26 - Next week ?
H.J. Lu
hjl.tools@gmail.com
Wed Jan 13 03:09:00 GMT 2016
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 05:11:53PM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:21:08AM +0100, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On 08 Jan 2016, at 18:26, Matthias Klose <doko@ubuntu.com> wrote:
>> >> > - PR 19421, but currently only a bug report
>> >
>> > Now analysed. The ppc64le kernel problem is due to needing to keep
>> > undefined symbols. I'd say it is also a kernel bug that the symbol in
>> > question isn't defined, but that's really another issue. The point is
>> > that we have a GNU ld use case where removing undefined symbols breaks
>> > an existing program.
Is this problem specific to ppc64le? Do we have a small testcase?
>> >> Let’s exclude it.
>> >
>> > I'm of two minds about this. PR3417 wants undefined symbols to be
>> > removed: "When the reference to __tls_get_addr is removed, it leaves
>> > undefined symbol in symtab. It is confusing." H.J. what exactly was
>> > confusing? When I made the PR3417 patch, I thought PR3417 was mostly
>> > about cosmetics and figured that removing undefined symbols was
>> > reasonably safe. If it is true that PR3417 was only cosmetic, I think
>> > my patch ought to be reverted.
>> >
>>
>> Is PR3417 the right PR?
>
> No, sorry. https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4317
>
My PR is with executable. But
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19421
is for relocatable objects. I am OK to keep undefined symbols
in .o files.
--
H.J.
More information about the Binutils
mailing list