On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana....@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan > <ramana.radhakrish...@foss.arm.com> 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 ? > > Ping ^ 2. > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-03/msg01680.html
Ping ^3 https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-03/msg01680.html Ramana > > regards > Ramana >> >> regards >> Ramana >> >> 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.
