On Sat, 25 Jun 2016, H.J. Lu wrote: > The resolver for ifunc functions might resolve to a non-local function.
I think the explanation doesn't match the testcase, in which all three functions: the resolver, the symbol being resolved, and the ultimate resolution are all static. I don't think there was an intention to allow the resolver reside in a different translation unit than the resolvee, so the comment also seems confusing if not wrong. I can't speak to the validity of the code change, but if it's accepted, please improve the comment to say why ifuncs are treated specially. I would say something like "Reject indirect functions, even if they are not externally visible: they need to be treated like interposable (and the definition can only refer to the resolver, which is not useful for optimization)". Alexander
