This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Proposal for STT_GNU_IFUNC and R_*_IRELATIVE
- From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- To: Rod dot Evans at sun dot com
- Cc: generic-abi at googlegroups dot com, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, discuss at x86-64 dot org, Binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>, IA32 System V Application Binary Interface <ia32-abi at googlegroups dot com>, Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>, Ulrich Drepper <drepper at redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 09:45:31 -0700
- Subject: Re: Proposal for STT_GNU_IFUNC and R_*_IRELATIVE
- References: <6dc9ffc80905251156p1ab274aey8e52be086fd88749@mail.gmail.com> <4A1C1B68.10805@sun.com>
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Rod Evans <Rod.Evans@sun.com> wrote:
> Late last year there was a discussion in regards STT_IFUNC, and we
> thought you'd settled on this name (no _GNU_) and the associated
> value of 7.
>
> I guess we jumped the gun. ?Although we have no immediate plans to
> implement support for this, we did reserve the name-space, so that
> if nothing else we could identify new objects with this definition:
>
> ?sys/elf.h:#define ? STT_IFUNC ? 7 ? /* indirect code object (unused) */
>
>
> I assume we should now remove this dead-wood and reserve the STT_LOOS
> value instead.
>
Personally, I'd like to see
#define STT_IFUNC 7 /* indirect code object (unused) */
But since 7 is the last used generic symbol type and not all OSes
agree on STT_IFUNC, we moved it to OS specific range. We can't
wait forever on STT_IFUNC. If we want STT_IFUNC, we should
do it now. Otherwise we will use STT_GNU_IFUNC.
--
H.J.