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

[Michael Matz]

Hello,

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

> > > > 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.
> >
> 
> The design goal is to support shared libraries and archives with LTO.

Thanks for stating the obvious.  I haven't asked for the design goal, but 
the design, i.e. how that goal is intended to be achieved.  Though, I'm 
now sorry to have asked that.


Ciao,
Michael.