Re: gold patch: fix problem with TLS and 128-bit data on x86_64

["Cary Coutant" <ccoutant at google dot com>]

> Do we also need to use the addend in tls_gd_to_le, tls_desc_gd_to_le,
> and tls_ie_to_le?

I didn't think so, but I'm not so confident any more. In these cases,
the original relocations call for the address of a GOT entry, so the
use of any non-zero addend is messy. Should the relocation mean
((address of GOT entry for S) + A) or (address of GOT entry for (S +
A))? Arguably, it's the latter that makes more sense, but that's not
straightforward to implement (our table of GOT entries would have to
be keyed by a <symbol, addend> pair), and it seems reasonable to
require the addend to be zero for these relocations (we did require
this on HP-UX for PA and Itanium). (Of course, if we're going to
require that, we probably should print an error when we see a non-zero
addend.) Thoughts?

-cary