Re: RFC: linker enhancements

["H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>]

On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 10:04:56AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 02:51:14PM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > I guess I didn't change the comments when I made the change:
> > 
> > elflink.c: 903
> >   /* If the new weak definition comes from a relocatable file and the
> >      old symbol comes from a dynamic object, we treat the new one as
> >      strong.  */
> > 
> > elflink.c: 922
> >   /* If the old weak definition comes from a relocatable file and the
> >      new symbol comes from a dynamic object, we treat the old one as
> >      strong.  */
> > 
> > The old comments are wrong now.
> 
> More than that.  Not only are the later comments wrong, but the
> dt_needed code doesn't do anything now.  That was what was confusing
> me.  I'll rip it out and fix the comments.
> 

Some codes in _bfd_elf_merge_symbol are dead because of my weak symbol
change. But I was too afraid to break something to remove them :-(.


H.J.