This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Release 2.26 - Next week ?
- From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- To: Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Tristan Gingold <gingold at adacore dot com>, Matthias Klose <doko at ubuntu dot com>, binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 17:11:53 -0800
- Subject: Re: Release 2.26 - Next week ?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <C25FDD18-CD84-4630-9BCD-4B5E5CB057D6 at adacore dot com> <568FF162 dot 5000801 at ubuntu dot com> <828FEF00-284A-48C3-9395-2295167002EA at adacore dot com> <20160113010412 dot GB1270 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org>
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Alan Modra <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:21:08AM +0100, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>> > On 08 Jan 2016, at 18:26, Matthias Klose <email@example.com> wrote:
>> > - PR 19421, but currently only a bug report
> Now analysed. The ppc64le kernel problem is due to needing to keep
> undefined symbols. I'd say it is also a kernel bug that the symbol in
> question isn't defined, but that's really another issue. The point is
> that we have a GNU ld use case where removing undefined symbols breaks
> an existing program.
>> Letâs exclude it.
> I'm of two minds about this. PR3417 wants undefined symbols to be
> removed: "When the reference to __tls_get_addr is removed, it leaves
> undefined symbol in symtab. It is confusing." H.J. what exactly was
> confusing? When I made the PR3417 patch, I thought PR3417 was mostly
> about cosmetics and figured that removing undefined symbols was
> reasonably safe. If it is true that PR3417 was only cosmetic, I think
> my patch ought to be reverted.
Is PR3417 the right PR?