This is the mail archive of the 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]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] PR ld/19636: [x86] Resolve undefweak and defined symbols in executable

On 02/03/16 12:50, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 4:28 AM, Jiong Wang <> wrote:

On 02/03/16 12:22, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 4:03 AM, Jiong Wang <>

On 01/03/16 14:37, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 6:02 AM, Kyrill Tkachov
<> wrote:
Hi HJ,

On 26/02/16 12:51, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:59 AM, H.J. Lu <> wrote:
Here is the updated patch I am testing.  The linker behavior is
in 2 cases when creating executable:

1. When there are mixed PIC and non-PIC references to undefined
weak symbols, undefined weak symbols are resolved to 0 at link-time.
2. If all references to undefined weak symbols are PIC, dynamic
relocations against undefined weak symbols will be generated unless
-z nodynamic-undefined-weak is passed to linker.

BTW,  We have to resolve R_X86_64_32/R_X86_64_PC32 relocations
against undefined weak symbols to zero.  Otherwise, we will get
relocation overflow for dynamic R_X86_64_32/R_X86_64_PC32

This is what I am checking in.

I'm seeing:

NA->FAIL: Mixing PIC and non-PIC
on aarch64-none-linux-gnu.
You can either fix aarch64 backend or skip the test for aarch64.


    For your testcase, AArch64 is not generating dynamic relocation for
    weak undefined symbol referenced from non-pic code when linking
    exectuable, instead, it's resolved to zero during static linking
    As far as I know, this behavior is exactly what's described here at

    And reading those historical discussions,

    Looks to me the ld behavior changes introduced by your patch is quite
    sensitive and there still be lack of consensus.
What linker change were you referring to?  I only added a testcase.

I mean those linker changes added together with this testcase.

commit aec6b87e0b66d707ead62ca40d220ee78b4cf5a5
Author: H.J. Lu <>
Date:   Fri Feb 26 04:16:15 2016 -0800

     [x86] Resolve non-PIC undefweak symbols in executable

As far as aarch64 backend is concerned, I only added a testcase.

Well, then why you put it under generic directory? and without restricting it on x86? this is implicitly affect all targets, and enforcing all targets to follow the changes on x86. I think similar changes should only be encouraged to other target if it's conventional rules, or it's clearly documented by generic or that target's ELF

While reading from,

  "The link editor does not extract archive members to resolve undefined
  weak symbols. Unresolved weak symbols have a zero value."

Looks to me the spec is even more strict that weak symbol's life is defined to be ended after static linking stage. All unresolved weak symbols are assigned zero value.

IMO, the support of weak symbol under various rare and complex scenarios are very target specific, thus I'd either move this testcase under x86 directory or put it under generic directory but enabling it on x86 only initially. If other targets want and start to support similar features like x86 on weak symbol, then they can be enabled seperately.
This looks to me is a more clean & acceptable way to other targets.



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