Hi Richard, I also ran the gcc testsuite with RUNTESTFLAGS="--tool_opts=-mcopyrelocs" to check for issues. The only test that failed was g++.dg/tsan/default_options.C. It uses -fpie -pie and BFD ld to link. Since BFD ld does not support copy relocations with -pie, it does not link. I linked with gold to make the test pass.
Could you please take another look at this patch? Thanks Sri On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Sriraman Tallam <tmsri...@google.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Richard Henderson <r...@redhat.com> wrote: >> On 06/20/2014 05:17 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote: >>> Index: config/i386/i386.c >>> =================================================================== >>> --- config/i386/i386.c (revision 211826) >>> +++ config/i386/i386.c (working copy) >>> @@ -12691,7 +12691,9 @@ legitimate_pic_address_disp_p (rtx disp) >>> return true; >>> } >>> else if (!SYMBOL_REF_FAR_ADDR_P (op0) >>> - && SYMBOL_REF_LOCAL_P (op0) >>> + && (SYMBOL_REF_LOCAL_P (op0) >>> + || (TARGET_64BIT && ix86_copyrelocs && flag_pie >>> + && !SYMBOL_REF_FUNCTION_P (op0))) >>> && ix86_cmodel != CM_LARGE_PIC) >>> return true; >>> break; >> >> This is the wrong place to patch. >> >> You ought to be adjusting SYMBOL_REF_LOCAL_P, by providing a modified >> TARGET_BINDS_LOCAL_P. > > I have done this in the new attached patch, I added a new function > i386_binds_local_p which will check for this and call > default_binds_local_p otherwise. > >> >> Note in particular that I believe that you are doing the wrong thing with >> weak >> and COMMON symbols, in that you probably ought not force a copy reloc there. > > I added an extra check to not do this for WEAK symbols. I also added a > check for DECL_EXTERNAL so I believe this will also not be called for > COMMON symbols. > >> >> Note the complexity of default_binds_local_p_1, and the fact that all you >> really want to modify is >> >> /* If PIC, then assume that any global name can be overridden by >> symbols resolved from other modules. */ >> else if (shlib) >> local_p = false; >> >> near the bottom of that function. > > I did not understand what you mean here? Were you suggesting an > alternative way of doing this? > > Thanks for reviewing > Sri > >> >> >> r~
