This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the binutils project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: elflink.h -Bsymbolic change

To: Alan Modra <alan at linuxcare dot com dot au>
Subject: Re: elflink.h -Bsymbolic change
From: "H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 19:26:25 -0700
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper at cygnus dot com>,Hans-Peter Nilsson <hans-peter dot nilsson at axis dot com>,binutils at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
References: <m34rvzng4f.fsf@otr.mynet.cygnus.com> <Pine.LNX.4.21.0104091002400.27717-100000@front.linuxcare.com.au>

On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 11:31:35AM +1000, Alan Modra wrote:
> 
> Actually, I don't think it is correct.  Certainly, I shouldn't have forced
> the protected symbols local, but on the other hand they do need to lose
> their .plt entry, don't they?  Otherwise they won't be "protected" from
> the dynamic linker binding against some other symbol.  See attached patch

No, it is the job for the dynamic linker. I don't think you should
change PLT for protected. As far as the static linker is concerned,
a protected symbol is no difference from the default, global symbol.
The only thing the static linker has to is mark it protected so that
the dynamic linker can do the right thing.

H.J.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: elflink.h -Bsymbolic change
  - From: Alan Modra

References:
- Re: elflink.h -Bsymbolic change
  - From: Ulrich Drepper
- Re: elflink.h -Bsymbolic change
  - From: Alan Modra

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]