On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 5:30 PM, James Greenhalgh <james.greenha...@arm.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 02:11:49PM +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: >> Hi, >> >> In this PR we have a situation where we aren't really detecting >> weak references vs weak definitions. If one has a weak definition >> that binds locally there's no reason not to put out PC relative >> relocations. >> >> However if you have a genuine weak reference that is >> known not to bind locally it makes very little sense >> to put out an entry into the literal pool which doesn't always >> work with DSOs and shared objects. >> >> Tested aarch64-none-linux-gnu bootstrap and regression test with no >> regressions >> >> This is not a regression and given what we've seen recently with protected >> symbols and binds_locally_p I'd rather this were queued for GCC 7. >> >> Ok ? > > Based on the bugzilla report, this looks OK for GCC 7 to me. But I don't > know the dark corners of the elf specification, so I'd rather leave the > final review to Richard or Marcus.
Richard / Marcus, ping ? Ramana > > Thanks, > James > >> gcc/ >> >> * config/aarch64/aarch64.c (aarch64_classify_symbol): Typo in comment fixed. >> Only force to memory if it is a weak external reference. >> >> gcc/testsuite >> >> * gcc.target/aarch64/pr63874.c: New test. >
