From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <binutils-return-27922-listarch-binutils=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 29898 invoked by alias); 21 Jul 2003 03:18:08 -0000
Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:binutils-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/>
List-Post: <mailto:binutils@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:binutils-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 29890 invoked from network); 21 Jul 2003 03:18:07 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO rwcrmhc12.comcast.net) (216.148.227.85)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 Jul 2003 03:18:07 -0000
Received: from lucon.org ([12.234.88.5]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc12) with ESMTP
          id <20030721031803014000r013e>; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 03:18:03 +0000
Received: by lucon.org (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 495DD2C4EB; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 03:18:03 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 03:18:00 -0000
From: "H. J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org>
To: Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>, binutils@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] unify dynamic_symbol_p implementations
Message-ID: <20030721031803.GA4130@lucon.org>
References: <20030718220412.GA23962@nevyn.them.org> <200307181516.12627.bwilson@tensilica.com> <20030718222150.GF5270@redhat.com> <20030719024642.GA1188@lucon.org> <20030719041330.GA3732@lucon.org> <20030719055725.GF27145@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au> <20030719062106.GA5320@lucon.org> <20030720151351.GH27145@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au> <20030720152643.GA26257@lucon.org> <20030721001348.GK27145@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20030721001348.GK27145@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg00380.txt.bz2

On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 09:43:48AM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 08:26:43AM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > Weak defined symbols are purely for link time and only meaningful for
> > relocatable inputs.
> 
> Hmm, OK.  Seems a little odd that we make weak undef dynamic then.

Weak undef can be dynamic if there is a definition from a shared library. It
is just weak defined should be treated as strong when a competing definition
comes from a shared library.

> 
> I'm going to install my patch so that x86 and ppc work again.  It's
> likely that ia64 could use _bfd_elf_symbol_refs_local_p instead of
> _bfd_elf_dynamic_symbol_p, but I don't really have the time right
> now to figure out what needs doing.
> 

I will check out ia64 tomorrow.


H.J.