Proposal for STT_GNU_IFUNC and R_*_IRELATIVE
H.J. Lu
hjl.tools@gmail.com
Tue May 26 16:50:00 GMT 2009
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Rod Evans <Rod.Evans@sun.com> wrote:
> Late last year there was a discussion in regards STT_IFUNC, and we
> thought you'd settled on this name (no _GNU_) and the associated
> value of 7.
>
> I guess we jumped the gun. Although we have no immediate plans to
> implement support for this, we did reserve the name-space, so that
> if nothing else we could identify new objects with this definition:
>
> sys/elf.h:#define STT_IFUNC 7 /* indirect code object (unused) */
>
>
> I assume we should now remove this dead-wood and reserve the STT_LOOS
> value instead.
>
Personally, I'd like to see
#define STT_IFUNC 7 /* indirect code object (unused) */
But since 7 is the last used generic symbol type and not all OSes
agree on STT_IFUNC, we moved it to OS specific range. We can't
wait forever on STT_IFUNC. If we want STT_IFUNC, we should
do it now. Otherwise we will use STT_GNU_IFUNC.
--
H.J.
More information about the Libc-alpha
mailing list