This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: PATCH: Fix visibility for MIPS (Re: 2 problems with ELF visibility)
- From: "H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- To: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 12:55:05 -0700
- Subject: Re: PATCH: Fix visibility for MIPS (Re: 2 problems with ELF visibility)
- References: <20020422120657.A14601@lucon.org> <20020422124447.A15428@lucon.org> <20020424142306.GT31160@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au> <20020424105757.A25613@lucon.org> <20020425044818.GX31160@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au> <20020425083954.B12259@lucon.org>
On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 08:39:54AM -0700, H . J . Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 02:18:18PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 10:57:57AM -0700, H . J . Lu wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 11:53:06PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 12:44:47PM -0700, H . J . Lu wrote:
> > > > > I am enclosing a patch here. Any comments?
> > > > >
> > > > > * elfxx-mips.c (mips_elf_link_hash_entry): Add forced_local.
> > > > > (mips_elf_link_hash_newfunc): Initialize forced_local to false.
> > > > > (mips_elf_record_global_got_symbol): Call _bfd_mips_elf_hide_symbol
> > > > > to hide a global symbol.
> > > > > (_bfd_mips_elf_hide_symbol): Return if forced_local is true. Set
> > > > > forced_local to true.
> > > >
> > > > The idea seems reasonable, but why can't you use ELF_LINK_FORCED_LOCAL
> > > > instead of using a new flag?
> > >
> > > Here is a patch which does that.
> >
> > I prefer your first patch. We ought to avoid adding extra back end
> > hooks where possible. BTW, I wasn't trying to say that using a new
> > flag was bad in itself, just that it seemed at first glance to be
> > duplicating an existing flag.
>
> Me too. That was my thought too.
I checked in my first patch. It should only affect glibc in CVS.
H.J.