[PATCH] ld: Skip the LTO archive member only for the earlier DSO

[Michael Matz]

Hello,

On Wed, 9 Apr 2025, H.J. Lu wrote:

> > > Thanks!  Does it also solve the inline testcase I cobbled up in
> > >   https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32846#c6
> > > (that wasn't working even without my patch but is related to the
> > > shared vs. static symbols).
> >
> > FWIW: It doesn't, it remains resolving to the abort in libc.so, not to
> > either the one in the cmdline shared lib (which would also be wrong) nor
> > to the one from static.a, which would be the correct one.
> >
> > Obviously it's still better to have this patch now, as it fixes a
> > regression in the wild, but I wonder if adding more and more conditions
> > for each testcase we come along is the right approach to deal with this.
> > Can you describe what first_hash is _really_ supposed to be and how it
> > interacts with the linkers symbol table vs. the two LTO symbol lookup
> > phases?
> 
> first_hash has the first definition for dynamic symbol or archive symbol
> lookup.

Well, yes, that's how it's currently filled.  But why, and how does that 
interact with the linker symbol table, or rather: how have you designed it 
to interact?  I will also say that the above isn't the full truth, it 
contains the first definition for archive symbols _only_ when at the point 
of seeing it no reference to it existed yet.


Ciao,
Michael.