Re: Can objdump show friendly symbolic function name?

[Daniel Jacobowitz <dan at codesourcery dot com>]

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 06:32:36PM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> > That is not the case.
> > 
> > Case in point (before multi-got bugs were fixed), I had reliably working on
> > mipsel-linux (o32):
> > 
> > Application: no -mxgot
> > libc.so.6/libpthread.so.???: no -mxgot
> > other .so files: no -mxgot.
> > libgcj.so.???: -mxgot.
> > 
> > 
> > As far as I know, you can mix -mxgot and non -mxgot executables and shared
> > objects.
> 
>  So what was the fuss about when Mozilla (or whatever monstrous program 
> that was) failed to compile with standard GOT one day then?  Why didn't 
> they simply build whatever the failing object was with -mxgot and the 
> multi-GOT scheme was added to binutils instead?  It looks to me like an 
> overkill solution was chosen, so surely there must have been a reason.

Everything linked in to the executable has to use -mxgot - or you have
to be lucky.  The usual problem was that one of crtbegin or crtend
would have a GOT reference that ended up out of range.  That's all I
remember, though.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery