------- Additional Comments From amodra at gmail dot com 2010-01-15 13:55 ------- 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.
In reply to comment #4: Of course. My comment #2 is about the case when a strong global defined symbol exists. -- 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
