Re: [PATCH] LoongArch: Do not add DF_STATIC_TLS for TLS LE

[Fangrui Song <maskray@google.com>]

On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 9:45 PM Tatsuyuki Ishi <ishitatsuyuki@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 28, 2023, at 23:58, Tatsuyuki Ishi <ishitatsuyuki@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > TLS LE is exclusively for executables, while DF_STATIC_TLS is for DLLs.
> > DF_STATIC_TLS should only be set for TLS IE (and when it's DLL), not LE.
> > ---
> > bfd/elfnn-loongarch.c | 2 --
> > 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/bfd/elfnn-loongarch.c b/bfd/elfnn-loongarch.c
> > index bd448cda453..64c34e99261 100644
> > --- a/bfd/elfnn-loongarch.c
> > +++ b/bfd/elfnn-loongarch.c
> > @@ -862,8 +862,6 @@ loongarch_elf_check_relocs (bfd *abfd, struct bfd_link_info *info,
> >         if (!bfd_link_executable (info))
> >           return false;
> >
> > -       info->flags |= DF_STATIC_TLS;
> > -
> >         if (!loongarch_elf_record_tls_and_got_reference (abfd, info, h,
> >                                                          r_symndx,
> >                                                          GOT_TLS_LE))
> > --
> > 2.40.1
> >
> >
>
> Any interest in reviewing / merging this and the other two patches sent together?
> The DF_STATIC_TLS change is pretty short, the formatting patch is trivial.
> As for the last patch introducing a comment change, I’m not sure what Mengqing’s stance is, but my intention for the comment change is to provide a better context for the reader rather than comparing to a solution that is not currently implemented in the codebase.
>
> Tatsuyuki.

I think this is correct and should be applied.


-- 
宋方睿