From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gnu-gabi-return-34-listarch-gnu-gabi=sourceware.org@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 74664 invoked by alias); 24 Feb 2016 15:30:22 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gnu-gabi-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gnu-gabi.sourceware.org>
List-Post: <mailto:gnu-gabi@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gnu-gabi-help@sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gnu-gabi-subscribe@sourceware.org>
Sender: gnu-gabi-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 74642 invoked by uid 89); 24 Feb 2016 15:30:21 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Checked: by ClamAV 0.99 on sourceware.org
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=highly
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on sourceware.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-HELO: mx2.suse.de
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2016 00:00:00 -0000
From: Michael Matz <matz@suse.de>
To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
cc: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>, Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com>, 
    gnu-gabi@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: Specify how undefined weak symbol should be resolved in
 executable
In-Reply-To: <CAMe9rOqnfqM_jriQiF4v4OZ0309nHP5mNbz3PZbHs7WGrqhNJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.20.1602241628540.20277@wotan.suse.de>
References: <CAMe9rOoqOvXXOjLKnyg0OPpPE4pEvN4kO6+e7nWz7Ng9LTBwSg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMe9rOq=aMiTZ_nwS9aO9ba5bj_ak4gpk9D+JSfwged70VM3mg@mail.gmail.com> <20160223044029.GE10657@bubble.grove.modra.org> <CAMe9rOokycUczJ-F8rafSoTygz0emiCUHz3FwVObCf=HPun=ew@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.LSU.2.20.1602231748430.20277@wotan.suse.de> <CAMe9rOrFK5+AQJ1RepMD_R3Kw+s5Yg3k8C-PEmMTt1MtC3tKng@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LSU.2.20.1602231756490.20277@wotan.suse.de> <CAMe9rOpQ4Fwk7wJNQuW_5VFuZTApuixt5e=NdrUmZccYK17cCg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160224010458.GF10657@bubble.grove.modra.org> <CAMe9rOpHGzJ--5gTucEsfrJtG5kDVyS8nUjc3P+XbpKXA+Ez4w@mail.gmail.com> <20160224015659.GH10657@bubble.grove.modra.org> <56CD0FC8.4030202@redhat.com>
 <CAMe9rOqnfqM_jriQiF4v4OZ0309nHP5mNbz3PZbHs7WGrqhNJQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (LSU 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-SW-Source: 2016-q1/txt/msg00032.txt.bz2

Hi,

On Wed, 24 Feb 2016, H.J. Lu wrote:

> > Agreed. Anything that brings back weak symbols into the dynamic loader 
> > is going to be highly suspect to me, and require a lot of explaining.
> 
> I was saying as far as ld was concerned, weak defined and non-weak 
> defined dynamic symbols would be treated equally at run-time.  Do you 
> agree with me?

I at least don't.  The difference is that a defined weak symbol (at link 
edit time) might become undefined at runtime.  A defined non-weak symbol 
can't.  So they have to be handled differently.


Ciao,
Michael.