This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Release 2.26 - Next week ?
- From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- To: Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Tristan Gingold <gingold at adacore dot com>, Matthias Klose <doko at ubuntu dot com>, binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 19:09:27 -0800
- Subject: Re: Release 2.26 - Next week ?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <C25FDD18-CD84-4630-9BCD-4B5E5CB057D6 at adacore dot com> <568FF162 dot 5000801 at ubuntu dot com> <828FEF00-284A-48C3-9395-2295167002EA at adacore dot com> <20160113010412 dot GB1270 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org> <CAMe9rOpPPFuAwR-vif32KvDnjHRy5p4ushrvhrVso43681E+3Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <20160113015844 dot GC1270 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org>
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Alan Modra <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 05:11:53PM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Alan Modra <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:21:08AM +0100, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>> >> > On 08 Jan 2016, at 18:26, Matthias Klose <email@example.com> wrote:
>> >> > - PR 19421, but currently only a bug report
>> > Now analysed. The ppc64le kernel problem is due to needing to keep
>> > undefined symbols. I'd say it is also a kernel bug that the symbol in
>> > question isn't defined, but that's really another issue. The point is
>> > that we have a GNU ld use case where removing undefined symbols breaks
>> > an existing program.
Is this problem specific to ppc64le? Do we have a small testcase?
>> >> Letâs exclude it.
>> > I'm of two minds about this. PR3417 wants undefined symbols to be
>> > removed: "When the reference to __tls_get_addr is removed, it leaves
>> > undefined symbol in symtab. It is confusing." H.J. what exactly was
>> > confusing? When I made the PR3417 patch, I thought PR3417 was mostly
>> > about cosmetics and figured that removing undefined symbols was
>> > reasonably safe. If it is true that PR3417 was only cosmetic, I think
>> > my patch ought to be reverted.
>> Is PR3417 the right PR?
> No, sorry. https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4317
My PR is with executable. But
is for relocatable objects. I am OK to keep undefined symbols
in .o files.