https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20114
--- Comment #9 from Andreas Krebbel <krebbel at linux dot ibm.com> --- (In reply to maamountki from comment #7) > Thinking of replacing the new layout with this one > > +----------------------------------+ > |.got[0]: DYNAMIC | <--- _GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_ .got > +----------------------------------+ > | | <--- non-plt GOT entries > | | > | | > +----------------------------------+ > |.got.plt[0]: link_map parm | <--- DT_PLTGOT .gotplt > |.got.plt[1]: &_dl_runtime_resolve | > | | > | | > +----------------------------------+ > | | <--- PLT GOT entries > | | > | | > | | > +----------------------------------+ > > However ld and gold layouts will not be on the same track and the code will > not be as simple as the current patch, What do you think? Would this really solve the linker script problem? I also considered this variant but it is some disadvantages: - Our PLT first entry accesses the link_map parm and the dl_runtime_resolve entries via _GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_. Fixing this probably would require adding another symbol to replace _GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_ which can be used in the initial PLT entry. - prelink currently adjusts DT_PLTGOT[0]. The value then will be read by ld.so via _GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_[0]. Having DT_PLTGOT != _GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_ would require to have two copies of that value and keep them in sync somehow and/or change prelink. However, I'm not sure prelink is still a concern anymore?! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
