This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the binutils project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: elflink.h -Bsymbolic change


On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 12:39:23PM +1000, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Apr 2001, H . J . Lu wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 11:31:35AM +1000, Alan Modra wrote:
> > > 
> > > Actually, I don't think it is correct.  Certainly, I shouldn't have forced
> > > the protected symbols local, but on the other hand they do need to lose
> > > their .plt entry, don't they?  Otherwise they won't be "protected" from
> > > the dynamic linker binding against some other symbol.  See attached patch
> > 
> > No, it is the job for the dynamic linker. I don't think you should
> > change PLT for protected.
> 
> H.J.,  before my 2001-04-04 change went in, protected symbols would have
> lost their .plt entry.  Are you saying this is wrong?

I tend to think it is wrong if it is true. As I said, protected symbols
should be no different from default, global symbols to the static
linker since protected symbols are the same as default, global symbols
if there are second definitions. Only the dynamic linker can know it
for sure at the run-time. The static linker doesn't know anything about
second definitions. Everything which used to work for default, global
symbols should work for protected symbols if there are no second
definitions. I am not sure losing .plt entries will change it or not.


H.J.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]