------- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-01-15 17:34 ------- (In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #5) > > HJ, I don't understand your point in comment #3. > > If your 9679 testcase isn't valid C then you had no reason to apply your > > 9679 > > patch. If your 9679 testcase is valid (and I think it is), then I believe > > the > > link error prior to your 9679 patch is simply due to a gcc bug. gcc ought > > to > > only generate an R_X86_64_PC32 reference to a function when the function is > > known to be local, and since a weak symbol can be overridden there is no > > guarantee that it is local. > > > > Symbol visibility was introduced well after weak symbol. I will ask > it in gABI group for clarification. >
According to discussions on gABI group: http://groups.google.com/group/generic-abi?hl=en GNU linker, gold and Sun linker all merge hidden visibility on weak symbol even when its definition is ignored. Closing as invalid. -- What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED Resolution| |INVALID http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11175 ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
