This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: xfail gcc.dg test
On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 01:33:47PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> Hmm, a better idea. If we are going to change the ABI, then it would
> be nice to get rid of those dot symbols entirely, replacing them with
> a local symbol. The linker already translates "bl .foo" when linking
> dynamic objects, to a stub that uses the opd entry for foo. We could
> do a similar trick when linking statically, ie. "bl foo" (new scheme
> would reference the opd sym) gets translated to "bl <address in opd
> entry>". The impact on the toolchain will only be marginally more
> than the change to use "..foo", and removes our major kludge.
Yeah, I think this would be best.
If not, at least the .foo or better ..foo symbols should be STV_HIDDEN,
so that they don't clutter .dynsym/.dynstr and the linker shouldn't generate
SHN_UNDEF .foo symbols in .dynsym just because somebody calls foo
(ATM it seems .foo is added eventhough it is not referenced in any
relocation).
Jakub