[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Specify how undefined weak symbol should be resolved in executable



On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Michael Matz <matz@suse.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 24 Feb 2016, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>> > To not do that (i.e. resolve them always at link edit time) breaks
>> > various current uses of weak symbols.  We could do that of course, but
>> > I don't think that would be useful to users.
>>
>> I suggest you raise this issue at
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/generic-abi
>
> You want to change existing behaviour, not me.  The Solaris and HP-UX guys
> already stated what they do, and are unlikely to want to change behaviour.
> I don't think we can change the gABI to be more explicit about weak
> symbols (not the least because Solaris and HP-UX already differ in the
> details), so I think we're left with discussing it here.
>

There is a difference between yours and mine.  I wanted to
clarify reference to undefined weak symbols in executable.
You want to change reference to defined weak symbols in
executable.  It is undefined weak vs defined weak.


-- 
H.J.