[PATCH] [ld][x86_64] remove unnecessary check
Sam James
sam@gentoo.org
Fri Nov 1 09:11:39 GMT 2024
ywgrit <yw987194828@gmail.com> writes:
> I executed "make check", and didn't find anything "unexpected" in the test results, so I guess it didn't cause any linker
> test regression. In addition to this, this patch has a little thing needs to modify, so I will send the next version.
The binutils testsuite should have 0 FAIL, it is not like e.g. GCC where
some FAILs are known but you should diff results.
>
> H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> 于2024年11月1日周五 16:06写道:
>
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2024 at 3:39 PM Xin Wang <yw987194828@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Xin Wang <yw987194828@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > bfd/elf64-x86-64.c | 10 ++--------
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/bfd/elf64-x86-64.c b/bfd/elf64-x86-64.c
> > index 4330bbd1648..209b14a46d9 100644
> > --- a/bfd/elf64-x86-64.c
> > +++ b/bfd/elf64-x86-64.c
> > @@ -1613,7 +1613,6 @@ elf_x86_64_need_pic (struct bfd_link_info *info,
> > v = _("protected symbol ");
> > else
> > v = _("symbol ");
> > - pic = NULL;
> > break;
> > }
> >
> > @@ -1621,16 +1620,12 @@ elf_x86_64_need_pic (struct bfd_link_info *info,
> > und = _("undefined ");
> > }
> > else
> > - {
> > name = bfd_elf_sym_name (input_bfd, symtab_hdr, isym, NULL);
> > - pic = NULL;
> > - }
> >
> > if (bfd_link_dll (info))
> > {
> > object = _("a shared object");
> > - if (!pic)
> > - pic = _("; recompile with -fPIC");
> > + pic = _("; ");
> > }
> > else
> > {
> > @@ -1638,8 +1633,7 @@ elf_x86_64_need_pic (struct bfd_link_info *info,
> > object = _("a PIE object");
> > else
> > object = _("a PDE object");
> > - if (!pic)
> > - pic = _("; recompile with -fPIE");
> > + pic = _("; recompile with -fPIE");
> > }
> >
> > /* xgettext:c-format */
> > --
> > 2.25.1
> >
>
> Does this patch cause any linker test regression?
>
> --
> H.J.
More information about the Binutils
mailing list