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

[Tatsuyuki Ishi <ishitatsuyuki@gmail.com>]

> 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.