I noticed that we had this case in our internal testsuite but couldn't find it in LLD's tests.
This adds that case.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110716
See the comment for my understanding of -no-pie and -shared expectation.
-no-pie has freedom on choices. We choose dynamic relocations to be consistent
with the handling of GOT-generating relocations.
Note: GNU ld has arch-varying behaviors and its x86 -pie has a very
complex rule:
if there is at least one GOT-generating or PLT-generating relocation and
-z dynamic-undefined-weak (enabled by default) is in effect, generate a
dynamic relocation.
We don't emulate its rule.
Reviewed By: peter.smith
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105164
In processRelocAux(), our handling of 1) link-time constant and 2) weak
undef is the same, so put them together to simplify the logic.
This moves the weak undef code around. The result is that: in a writable
section (or -z notext), we will no longer emit dynamic relocations for
weak undefined symbols.
The new behavior seems to match GNU linkers, and improves consistency
with the case of a readonly section.
The condition `!Config->Shared` was there probably because it is common
for a -shared link not to specify full dependencies. Keep it now but we
may revisit the decision in the future.
gABI says:
> The behavior of weak symbols in areas not specified by this document is
> implementation defined. Weak symbols are intended primarily for use in
> system software. Applications using weak symbols are unreliable since
> changes in the runtime environment might cause the execution to fail.
Reviewed By: ruiu
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63003
llvm-svn: 363399
Ben Dunbobbin