------- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-01-15 14:00 ------- (In reply to comment #5) > HJ, I don't understand your point in comment #3. > If your 9679 testcase isn't valid C then you had no reason to apply your 9679 > patch. If your 9679 testcase is valid (and I think it is), then I believe the > link error prior to your 9679 patch is simply due to a gcc bug. gcc ought to > only generate an R_X86_64_PC32 reference to a function when the function is > known to be local, and since a weak symbol can be overridden there is no > guarantee that it is local. >
Symbol visibility was introduced well after weak symbol. I will ask it in gABI group for clarification. -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11175 ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils