Re: Your change to ldlang.c

[Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>]

>>>>> "Ian" == Ian Lance Taylor <ian@zembu.com> writes:

    Ian> Well, I wrote that comment in the first place.  The fact that
    Ian> I forgot to think about ld -r then doesn't necessarily imply
    Ian> that I am wrong now.

True 'nuff.

    Ian> My concern is related to relocations in other input sections
    Ian> which refer to symbols defined in the input section being
    Ian> discarded, particularly if those relocations refer to local
    Ian> symbols in the section being discarded.  The correct
    Ian> semantics would seem to be to convert those relocations to
    Ian> instead refer to the link once section which is being kept.

OK, now I see what's worrying you.  Obviously, a local symbol in the
LINK_ONCE section can only be a problem if it is referred to by
something outside the LINK_ONCE section.  The semantics of that are
really weird, anyhow, IMHO, although I am by no means a PE expert.
(I've actually researched PE to some degree, but by no means
exhaustively, in the past.)

    Ian> Actually, I'm going to revert my ld -r change, at least for
    Ian> now.  You've convinced me that it will never do the right
    Ian> thing as it stands, whereas removing it will at least
    Ian> sometimes do the right thing.  We can put it back again if we
    Ian> figure out some different way to solve the problems that it
    Ian> causes.

Thanks!

--
Mark Mitchell                   mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC               http://www.codesourcery.com