[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Patch]: Fix ld pr11138 FAILures on mips*.

To: David Daney <>
Subject: Re: [Patch]: Fix ld pr11138 FAILures on mips*.
From: Richard Sandiford <>
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2011 21:16:22 +0000
Cc: binutils <>, linux-mips <>, Manuel Lauss <>, Debian MIPS <>
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=from:to:mail-followup-to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=NKs5iUFpFJXPWx53fHX+Mb3r8bxuop+yKg/bBWdsiPw=; b=SXQZsitBCSkhLlfcb1i2AOPvAP2Z9wp0p3U/n8H+atKXCiGJC7LAfZRQ6QeEk3Kq6f 9WNcqfwenV5EVH0oF1BHgbN4gvJ5i1BTfWFa6zRkBVVYqPy64SxJGtQrac5EiWPHOc/t XkZu0BHdyK5dqvqKhLhYHl+dIgPwZRUfiG2qo=
In-reply-to: <> (Alan Modra's message of "Tue, 6 Dec 2011 16:10:19 +1030")
Mail-followup-to: David Daney <>,binutils <>, linux-mips <>, Manuel Lauss <>, Debian MIPS <>,
References: <> <>
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux)
Alan Modra <> writes:
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 04:49:35PM -0800, David Daney wrote:
>> The root cause of this is that the mips linker synthesizes a special
>> symbol "__RLD_MAP", and then sets MIPS_RLD_MAP to point to it.  When
>> a version script is present, this symbol gets versioned along with
>> all the rest, and when it is time to take its address, the symbol
>> can no longer be found as it has had version information appended to
>> its name.
> Why not just change
>         && (strcmp (name, "__rld_map") == 0
>             || strcmp (name, "__RLD_MAP") == 0))
> to
>         && (strncmp (name, "__rld_map", 9) == 0
>             || strncmp (name, "__RLD_MAP", 9) == 0))
> in _bfd_mips_elf_finish_dynamic_symbol?  Perhaps the same for other
> syms there too?

Showing my ignorance here, but is that the usual behaviour for this kind
of thing?  I wouldn't have expected versions to apply to internally-created

There again, is this symbol (as opposed to the DT_MIPS_RLD_MAP tag)
actually part of the ABI?  I can't find any reference to it in the
original psABI, the SGI ELF64 spec, gdb or glibc.  If it's just an
internal thing, maybe we could get rid of it altogether, or at least
make it bind locally rather than globally.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>