1.1 --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
1.2 +++ b/patches/binutils/2.22/999-ppc-textrels.patch Fri Jan 27 13:13:00 2012 +0100
1.3 @@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
1.4 +http://bugs.gentoo.org/392645
1.5 +http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13470
1.6 +
1.7 +2011-12-03 Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com>
1.8 +
1.9 + PR ld/13470
1.10 + * elf32-ppc.c (ppc_elf_copy_indirect_symbol): Revert substantive
1.11 + change in 2011-07-01 commit. Comment.
1.12 + * elf64-ppc.c (ppc64_elf_copy_indirect_symbol): Likewise.
1.13 +
1.14 +diff -durN binutils-2.22.orig/bfd/elf32-ppc.c binutils-2.22/bfd/elf32-ppc.c
1.15 +--- binutils-2.22.orig/bfd/elf32-ppc.c 2011-11-21 10:29:21.000000000 +0100
1.16 ++++ binutils-2.22/bfd/elf32-ppc.c 2011-12-14 19:52:43.308784395 +0100
1.17 +@@ -2987,10 +2987,6 @@
1.18 + edir->elf.needs_plt |= eind->elf.needs_plt;
1.19 + edir->elf.pointer_equality_needed |= eind->elf.pointer_equality_needed;
1.20 +
1.21 +- /* If we were called to copy over info for a weak sym, that's all. */
1.22 +- if (eind->elf.root.type != bfd_link_hash_indirect)
1.23 +- return;
1.24 +-
1.25 + if (eind->dyn_relocs != NULL)
1.26 + {
1.27 + if (edir->dyn_relocs != NULL)
1.28 +@@ -3022,6 +3018,16 @@
1.29 + eind->dyn_relocs = NULL;
1.30 + }
1.31 +
1.32 ++ /* If we were called to copy over info for a weak sym, that's all.
1.33 ++ You might think dyn_relocs need not be copied over; After all,
1.34 ++ both syms will be dynamic or both non-dynamic so we're just
1.35 ++ moving reloc accounting around. However, ELIMINATE_COPY_RELOCS
1.36 ++ code in ppc_elf_adjust_dynamic_symbol needs to check for
1.37 ++ dyn_relocs in read-only sections, and it does so on what is the
1.38 ++ DIR sym here. */
1.39 ++ if (eind->elf.root.type != bfd_link_hash_indirect)
1.40 ++ return;
1.41 ++
1.42 + /* Copy over the GOT refcount entries that we may have already seen to
1.43 + the symbol which just became indirect. */
1.44 + edir->elf.got.refcount += eind->elf.got.refcount;
1.45 +diff -durN binutils-2.22.orig/bfd/elf64-ppc.c binutils-2.22/bfd/elf64-ppc.c
1.46 +--- binutils-2.22.orig/bfd/elf64-ppc.c 2011-11-21 10:29:24.000000000 +0100
1.47 ++++ binutils-2.22/bfd/elf64-ppc.c 2011-12-14 19:52:43.336784395 +0100
1.48 +@@ -4435,10 +4435,6 @@
1.49 + edir->elf.ref_regular_nonweak |= eind->elf.ref_regular_nonweak;
1.50 + edir->elf.needs_plt |= eind->elf.needs_plt;
1.51 +
1.52 +- /* If we were called to copy over info for a weak sym, that's all. */
1.53 +- if (eind->elf.root.type != bfd_link_hash_indirect)
1.54 +- return;
1.55 +-
1.56 + /* Copy over any dynamic relocs we may have on the indirect sym. */
1.57 + if (eind->dyn_relocs != NULL)
1.58 + {
1.59 +@@ -4471,6 +4467,16 @@
1.60 + eind->dyn_relocs = NULL;
1.61 + }
1.62 +
1.63 ++ /* If we were called to copy over info for a weak sym, that's all.
1.64 ++ You might think dyn_relocs need not be copied over; After all,
1.65 ++ both syms will be dynamic or both non-dynamic so we're just
1.66 ++ moving reloc accounting around. However, ELIMINATE_COPY_RELOCS
1.67 ++ code in ppc64_elf_adjust_dynamic_symbol needs to check for
1.68 ++ dyn_relocs in read-only sections, and it does so on what is the
1.69 ++ DIR sym here. */
1.70 ++ if (eind->elf.root.type != bfd_link_hash_indirect)
1.71 ++ return;
1.72 ++
1.73 + /* Copy over got entries that we may have already seen to the
1.74 + symbol which just became indirect. */
1.75 + if (eind->elf.got.glist != NULL)