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: Your patch on 2001-01-26 is bad


On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 09:57:43PM -0800, H . J . Lu wrote:
> >   STV_PROTECTED: Resolved locally, but included in the
> > 		dynamic symbol table.
> 
> From outside, STV_PROTECTED is just like STV_DEFAULT. STV_PROTECTED is
> only meaningful inside DSO.

Is that not exactly what I said?

> When you do local binding for STV_PROTECTED, will funcntion address
> work right both inside and outside of DSO where it is defined?

Certainly.

> # grep STV_PROTECTED *.?
> 
> in bfd, you will only see
> 
> elf.c:    case STV_PROTECTED: fprintf (file, " .protected"); break;
> 
> That shows STV_PROTECTED is partially implemented somewhere else.

So what?  One, no one said it had to be entirely implementable
in the linker.  Two, this isn't an argument against doing more
link time resolution.  Three, virtually all of the places in
bfd that we look at visibility at all we check != STV_DEFAULT
so that grep isn't going to catch it.


r~

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