This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] PR ld/19636: [x86] Resolve undefweak and defined symbols in executable
- From: Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana dot gcc at googlemail dot com>
- To: Jiong Wang <jiong dot wang at foss dot arm dot com>
- Cc: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>, Kyrill Tkachov <kyrylo dot tkachov at foss dot arm dot com>, Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>, Cary Coutant <ccoutant at gmail dot com>, Binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 13:34:46 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR ld/19636: [x86] Resolve undefweak and defined symbols in executable
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20160223175814 dot GA2858 at intel dot com> <alpine dot LSU dot 2 dot 20 dot 1602241749340 dot 20277 at wotan dot suse dot de> <CAMe9rOrSNYV_x-5aU7K+hXHNrinE9Co8y1F5VUkY+SoRQize=g at mail dot gmail dot com> <alpine dot LSU dot 2 dot 20 dot 1602241753490 dot 20277 at wotan dot suse dot de> <CAMe9rOpZNHtKRvx+5QurEOcVU96WEQuBRPJ6UorocjE-8Jd+vQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <alpine dot LSU dot 2 dot 20 dot 1602241808400 dot 20277 at wotan dot suse dot de> <CAMe9rOpAkC238Gvji0rf1_wBqEAZDDeTkhp_o-BirUrTa622aA at mail dot gmail dot com> <alpine dot LSU dot 2 dot 20 dot 1602241843180 dot 20277 at wotan dot suse dot de> <CAJimCsG=1u_yM6SBFAxCxB4JvWtxO5fZ22+OmG6UC_RYON3DdA at mail dot gmail dot com> <alpine dot LSU dot 2 dot 20 dot 1602251356320 dot 20277 at wotan dot suse dot de> <CAMe9rOpzw08UPTfjFEhixY=x4je--03ZdsXdrpdS-2sYSxDE3Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <56D5A0D9 dot 5070500 at foss dot arm dot com> <CAMe9rOq_sXd9qccTddvMB8sTBgOPWq0wgiqSQX4iSyUVys4n-Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <56D6D676 dot 5020202 at foss dot arm dot com> <CAMe9rOq__U54POpvUgKrYTinD1J0josM6MWph3d+zGmm=v3rgQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOq_LZTeC+Zkd6L-o=8Sd=hbvmTDJ+LOCMXfqVAuyU+5CQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <56D6E982 dot 1090607 at foss dot arm dot com>
>
> Well, then why you put it under generic directory? and without restricting
> it
> on x86?
Hang on Jiong - seeing the failure on other targets is fine -
technically other targets need to know if they are broken or not, the
best way of getting attention is a FAIL.
regards
Ramana
>
> IMO, the support of weak symbol under various rare and complex scenarios are
> very
> target specific, thus I'd either move this testcase under x86 directory or
> put it under
> generic directory but enabling it on x86 only initially. If other targets
> want and start
> to support similar features like x86 on weak symbol, then they can be
> enabled seperately.
> This looks to me is a more clean & acceptable way to other targets.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Regards,
> Jiong