https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65780
--- Comment #31 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> --- (In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #29) > Oh how I wish all this stuff was better documented, both in the GCC sources > and at a higher level in some linkers/loaders documentation. > > ix86_binds_local_p needs a function comment. I think with a function > comment, no comments would be needed in the function body. Updated. > I think it's also advisable to get a function comment for the > default_binds_local* that don't currently have one. That can be done in a flow-up patch. > What I'm trying to wrap my head around is what "defined_locally" really > means. Is it a "must" or "maybe" property when it gets set in > default_binds_local_p_3? > > If it's a must property, then "common_maybe_local" seems mis-named and/or > mis-used (the former seems most likely to me). > > If it's a maybe property, then why is a common uninit local filtered out? > At this point we don't know if a common uninit local will be defined locally > or not, so it's a maybe. > > I can probably go forward with an approval or specific change > recommendations that would lead to approval once someone can tell me if > defined_locally is a maybe or must property. A common symbol in PIC will never be local, for any targets, unless it has hidden/internal visibility.
