On Aug 4, 2013, at 8:14 AM, Chung-Lin Tang <clt...@codesourcery.com> wrote: > On 13/7/15 1:43 AM, Diego Novillo wrote: >> Could you please repost the patch with its description? This thread >> is sufficiently old and noisy that I'm not even sure what the patch >> does nor why. > > Taking the same example in my first post: > > Under -fPIC, the code in rtlanal.c:nonzero_address_p() does not properly > recognize the "PIC-reg + <constant>" form of load as a weak symbol; it > returns 'true' immediately after seeing the pic-reg indexing, and does > not test the wrapped symbol for DECL_WEAK.
So, I can't help but think that others would say that looking into an unspec is by nature, the wrong way to do it, unless that code is in the port. I think the followup from Bernhard points to a better solution, though the wording in the comment was objectionable. Merely say that the symbol, if weak and not defined, is then not local.
