From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 64249 invoked by alias); 16 Apr 2015 11:12:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 64196 invoked by uid 48); 16 Apr 2015 11:12:54 -0000 From: "hjl.tools at gmail dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/65780] [5/6 Regression] Uninitialized common handling in executables Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 11:12:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: target X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: hjl.tools at gmail dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 5.0 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2015-04/txt/msg01328.txt.bz2 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65780 --- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11) > And, shouldn't common_maybe_local for i?86/x86_64 be > !flag_pic || (TARGET_64BIT && HAVE_LD_PIE_COPYRELOC != 0) > ? What about other targets that are known to generate COPY relocations in > this case for non-PIE executables? Should they pass !flag_pic? > Perhaps there should be a generic default_binds_local_p* entry point that > passes > !flag_pic as common_maybe_local, that those targets could (after maintainers > test it properly with various vintage linkers?) use as their > TARGET_BINDS_LOCAL_P ? Check flag_pic isn't necessary. For non-PIC, the same code sequence and relocation are used to access defined and undefined symbols, common or not.