https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88954
H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to nsz from comment #7)
> note that with
>
> void f_noplt(void) __attribute__((noplt));
> void (*p)(void) = f_noplt;
>
> the linker may create a PLT for f_noplt and use its address to initialize p
> in
> case of non-pie linking.
>
> alternatively the linker may emit a dynamic relocation for p so it is filled
> in
> by the dynamic linker to the actual address of f_noplt.
>
> it seems the bfd linker on x86_64 does the latter (if there is otherwise no
> PLT),
> but e.g. the gold linker does the former. (as far as the sysv abi is
> concerned
> both behaviours are correct, the linker does not know about the noplt attr.)
>
> this means that (depending on linker behaviour) a noplt function may get a
> PLT in
> non-pie executables (so noplt can only avoid lazy binding and jump slot
> relocs
> reliably in pic code), may be linkers should be fixed so noplt always avoids
> PLT
> (on x86_64, other targets have other issues with non-pic), but then this has
> to
> be abi to be reliable.
Gold doesn't have the same optimization as bfd linker on x86. This is just
one of them.
