This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [RFC] unify dynamic_symbol_p implementations
- From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- To: Bob Wilson <bwilson at tensilica dot com>
- Cc: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 12:57:40 -0700
- Subject: Re: [RFC] unify dynamic_symbol_p implementations
- References: <200307181202.40668.bwilson@tensilica.com>
On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 12:02:40PM -0700, Bob Wilson wrote:
> I think the "ignore_protected" argument should be 0 for the Xtensa port. A
> separate relocation (R_XTENSA_32) is used when taking the address of a
> function than when calling it (R_XTENSA_PLT), so there shouldn't be an issue
> with incorrectly comparing the PLT addresses instead of the function
> addresses. Unless I'm missing something here, you shouldn't have to "assume
> the worst".
What happens when an executable takes the address of a
function defined in a shared library?
r~