On 31/03/16 14:11, 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 ha
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 2:11 PM, 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 loca
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 2:11 PM, 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.
>
> Ho
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 5:30 PM, James Greenhalgh
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 loc
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.
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
