This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [Patch AArch64] Fix PR target/63874


On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 5:30 PM, James Greenhalgh
<james.greenhalgh@arm.com> 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 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 ?
>
> Based on the bugzilla report, this looks OK for GCC 7 to me. But I don't
> know the dark corners of the elf specification, so I'd rather leave the
> final review to Richard or Marcus.

Richard / Marcus, ping ?


Ramana
>
> Thanks,
> James
>
>> 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.
>


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]