https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22269
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> --- (In reply to Alan Modra from comment #11) > > If there is a program bug: > > ... > > may lead to undesired behavior. > > Quite so. > > > -z dynamic-undefined-weak applies if there is a DT_NEEDED entry which > > may provide definition for undefined weak reference at run-time. For static > > PIE, weak undefined should always be resolved to 0. > > I agree, which is why I felt it was a good idea to default > link_info.dynamic_undefined_weak to 0 when link_info.nointerp. That is fine as long as "-z dynamic-undefined-weak" doesn't change undefined weak symbol resolution in static PIE. > Also, --no-dynamic-linker -z dynamic-undefined-weak probably ought to be an > error, or at least warn. Either is OK with me as long as undefined weak symbol is resolved to 0 in static PIE. > However, making that change (or explicitly passing -z > nodynamic-undefined-weak) results in x86 tests that fail, due to not > generating a plt entry for the undefined weak call. No matter how I look at They fail because of undefined weak symbols in dynamic symbol table which should be expected. But undefined weak symbols are still resolved to 0 at link-time. I checked a few testcases to verify it. > it, that is a bug in the x86 backend: link_info.dynamic_undefined_weak > should not control the generation of a plt entry. (I'm also of the opinion > that adding a plt entry for an undefined weak without dynamic relocs is just > bloat, but that's a separate issue and one I don't care to argue about.) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
