From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15414 invoked by alias); 5 Aug 2012 22:49:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 15406 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Aug 2012 22:49:43 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from eddie.linux-mips.org (HELO cvs.linux-mips.org) (78.24.191.182) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 05 Aug 2012 22:49:20 +0000 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1]:39989 "EHLO localhost.localdomain" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by eddie.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S1903721Ab2HEWtS (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Aug 2012 00:49:18 +0200 Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 10:14:00 -0000 From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" To: Jan-Benedict Glaw cc: Hans-Peter Nilsson , binutils@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] VAX/BFD: Omit PLT slots for local symbols In-Reply-To: <20120715215705.GZ25491@lug-owl.de> Message-ID: References: <20120715215705.GZ25491@lug-owl.de> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-08/txt/msg00096.txt.bz2 On Sun, 15 Jul 2012, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: > > bfd/ > > * elf32-vax.c (elf_vax_adjust_dynamic_symbol): Don't allocate > > PLT slots for local symbols. > > > > ld/testsuite/ > > * ld-vax-elf/plt-local-lib.dd: New test. > > * ld-vax-elf/plt-local-lib.ld: New test linker script. > > * ld-vax-elf/plt-local-lib.s: New test source. > > * ld-vax-elf/plt-local.dd: New test. > > * ld-vax-elf/plt-local.ld:New test linker script. > > * ld-vax-elf/plt-local.s: New test source. > > * ld-vax-elf/plt-local-hidden-pic.s: New test source. > > * ld-vax-elf/plt-local-rehidden-pic.s: New test source. > > * ld-vax-elf/vax-elf.exp: New test script. > > Even if the test cases wiring-up can be done in one way or another and > both have their pros and cons, lets stop the discussion here. First of > all, I'm quite happy that there are actually new test cases. Editing > another list to let it run is a second step, but ... I think we can > manage that. Nothing's going to be cast in stone here, I'll be happy to update or even turn this test case (and any following) upside down entirely once we've come up with a better solution. > Please apply. Thanks for your review, I have trivially refreshed this change and regression retested it with no problems spotted. Applied now. Apologies for the latency. Maciej