Re: [committed, PATCH] Always create dynsym section with dynamic sections

["H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 6:37 PM, Faraz Shahbazker
<faraz.shahbazker@imgtec.com> wrote:
> On 04/22/16 16:24, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Faraz Shahbazker
>> <Faraz.Shahbazker@imgtec.com> wrote:
>>> On 04/22/2016 12:28 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Faraz Shahbazker
>>>>> + if (dynsymcount != 0 || elf_hash_table (info)->dynamic_sections_created)
>>>>> +     ++dynsymcount;
>>>>
>>>> Are you saying dynamic_sections_created is 0 for MIPS here
>>>> and will become 1 later?
>>>
>>> No, it will remain 0. The link is static, but the hash_table is still used to
>>> record global symbols that have GOT relocations against them. Ofc, this
>>> hash_table does not result in creation of a dynsym section, because well,
>>> dynamic_sections_created is 0.
>>>
>>> Check the list of callers to bfd_elf_link_record_dynamic_symbol(), a number of
>>> architectures use the link_hash_table in situations where it is not clear whether it is
>>> being used to track dynamic symbols for a dynamic executable, as it is for x86.
>>>
>>
>> So MIPS doesn't have dynamic symbols in this case.  It just borrows
>> dynsymcount for different purpose.  Is this correct?
>
> Not quite! MIPS is expecting dynsymcount to count the number of symbols
> that would have gone in to the .dynsym, even for a static executable. That way
> parts of the arch-specific code can remain agnostic to the static/dynamic nature
> of the link. It may not be used exactly as documented, but its not being used
> for what one would call a different purpose.
>
> All we need is for handling of dynsymcount when renumbering to be consistent with
> its initialization. If the initial increment for a NULL symbol was not gated by
> dynamic_sections_created, then the increment when renumbering should also not.
> If the increment when renumbering has to be gated by dynamic_sections_created,
> then the initial increment must also be so.
>

From what you are saying, shouldn't dynsymcount be incremented
unconditionally?


-- 
H.J.