This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: PR ld/3107
- From: Alan Modra <amodra at bigpond dot net dot au>
- To: binutils at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 08:40:03 +1030
- Subject: Re: PR ld/3107
- References: <20060915094858.30098.qmail@sourceware.org> <20060915133125.GA23913@bubble.grove.modra.org> <20061017153733.GH20843@bubble.grove.modra.org> <20061101035507.GA19187@nevyn.them.org> <20061101200055.GB19646@nevyn.them.org>
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 03:00:55PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 10:55:07PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > Do I have to duplicate the logic to determine whether a symbol will get
> > a PLT entry? It's rather too convoluted to move it out of
> > adjust_dynamic_symbol.
>
> Alan suggested that I in fact do have to, and pretty much wrote this
Another possibility occurred to me: You could run
arm_process_before_allocation both from arm_size_dynamic_sections and
arm_elf_before_allocation, the latter case only when the former won't
run (ie. !dynamic_sections_created). That way you could go back to
using plt.offset, and wouldn't need to worry that the logic matched.
I'm a little worried that the current test isn't quite right for
symbols with non-default visibility.
--
Alan Modra
IBM OzLabs - Linux Technology Centre