http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15435
Bug #: 15435
Summary: Gold rejects undefined weak hidden symbol
Product: binutils
Version: 2.24 (HEAD)
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: binutils
AssignedTo: unassig...@sourceware.org
ReportedBy: ch...@smowton.net
Classification: Unclassified
If I try to link a file that contains a weak hidden undefined symbol, Gold
complains "hidden symbol 'foo' is not defined locally" (from
target-reloc.h:404, where weak symbols are disregarded but /any/ symbol with
non-default visibility, including weak ones, are required to be defined).
In the event this was produced by using the LLVMgold plugin, which has the
interesting behaviour that when processing an LLVM declaration like
declare extern_weak hidden void @_stdio_init() (example from uclibc)
the LLVM plugin actually disguises the fact that the extern is annotated hidden
and just describes it was weak-undef to Gold. However its subterfuge cannot
last, and it is discovered after LLVM lowers the LTO'd IR to a plain ELF binary
and Gold rereads, I guess to check if LLVM introduced calls (e.g. to memcpy).
At that stage it notices the extern is still declared hidden-weak-undef and
merges the symbol table entries.
One could argue this is a bug in LLVM (and I shall submit this report to their
tracker as well) and that the idea of hidden-undefined doesn't make sense. I
would argue a change is warranted in gold either way:
1. If you think hidden-weak-undef isn't sensible, report "illegal attributes
for symbol foo" rather than "not defined here"
2. If you think it is, disregard like any other weak-undef.
--
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
bug-binutils mailing list
bug-binutils@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
