[PATCH] LoongArch: Do not add DF_STATIC_TLS for TLS LE

[mengqinggang]

Thank you very much, I will apply this patch soon.

For the last patch, I think we can add new comments while retaining the 
original ones.
The original comments describe another implementation method and can be 
compared with the existing ones.
If I wants to allocate GOT entry separately for IE/GD  in the future, I 
can refer to these comments.

在 2024/1/22 下午1:45, Tatsuyuki Ishi 写道:
>> On Dec 28, 2023, at 23:58, Tatsuyuki Ishi <ishitatsuyuki@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> TLS LE is exclusively for executables, while DF_STATIC_TLS is for DLLs.
>> DF_STATIC_TLS should only be set for TLS IE (and when it's DLL), not LE.
>> ---
>> bfd/elfnn-loongarch.c | 2 --
>> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/bfd/elfnn-loongarch.c b/bfd/elfnn-loongarch.c
>> index bd448cda453..64c34e99261 100644
>> --- a/bfd/elfnn-loongarch.c
>> +++ b/bfd/elfnn-loongarch.c
>> @@ -862,8 +862,6 @@ loongarch_elf_check_relocs (bfd *abfd, struct bfd_link_info *info,
>> 	  if (!bfd_link_executable (info))
>> 	    return false;
>>
>> -	  info->flags |= DF_STATIC_TLS;
>> -
>> 	  if (!loongarch_elf_record_tls_and_got_reference (abfd, info, h,
>> 							   r_symndx,
>> 							   GOT_TLS_LE))
>> -- 
>> 2.40.1
>>
>>
> Any interest in reviewing / merging this and the other two patches sent together?
> The DF_STATIC_TLS change is pretty short, the formatting patch is trivial.
> As for the last patch introducing a comment change, I’m not sure what Mengqing’s stance is, but my intention for the comment change is to provide a better context for the reader rather than comparing to a solution that is not currently implemented in the codebase.
>
> Tatsuyuki.