On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 07:33:14AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote: > +mcopyreloc-in-pie
I'm not calling for a change in the name of the option (*), but technically it isn't completely correct to call your optimisation "copy reloc in pie". What you are really doing is using a linker generated variable (in .dynbss of an executable), in place of a variable definition in a shared library. Not all such variables use copy relocs! So it is quite possible for your optimisation to trigger but there be no sign of an R_<machine>_COPY relocation in the final executable. I do think your documentation should be talking about .dynbss copies of variables rather than copy relocations, which are just a way of initializing such variables. *) I should have fixed the name of the linker option added here: https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2001-09/msg00506.html -- Alan Modra Australia Development Lab, IBM
